[{"video_title": "Why do midterm congressional elections matter   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why do midterm congressional elections matter? Congressional elections matter because they are often and have increasingly been a referendum on the president. So it is a kind of real test from real voters doing real voting about whether people approve of what the president's doing or disapprove of what he's doing. But then there's also an important question of who has control of Congress. If the president's party has control of Congress, the way it's been working in recent history is that means he's basically gonna get a rubber stamp for what he wants to do. If the president's party is not in control of Congress, that means there are gonna be more investigations into the executive branch. And that's of course what the legislature is supposed to do, but it means more investigations."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What we're going to talk about in this video is voter turnout, which is a way of thinking about, well, how many of the people who could vote actually do vote? It's often expressed as a number, as a percentage, where you have the number who vote, number who vote, over the number of eligible voters, number who could vote, who could vote. And this percentage varies pretty dramatically from region to region amongst various demographic groups. We'll talk about that in a few minutes. And especially if you think about even sometimes year to year, and from country to country. There's some countries that have mandatory voting where this number is a lot higher, other countries for what various reasons, this number could be a lot lower. And one thing for you to think about, if you're already a voting age, you might've already thought this, or if you're not voting yet, you will soon, what would drive you to vote or what would drive you to not vote?"}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We'll talk about that in a few minutes. And especially if you think about even sometimes year to year, and from country to country. There's some countries that have mandatory voting where this number is a lot higher, other countries for what various reasons, this number could be a lot lower. And one thing for you to think about, if you're already a voting age, you might've already thought this, or if you're not voting yet, you will soon, what would drive you to vote or what would drive you to not vote? Stay home or somehow keep you from engaging in this political process? Well, one thing that you'll often hear folks say is, does my vote matter? Does my vote matter?"}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And one thing for you to think about, if you're already a voting age, you might've already thought this, or if you're not voting yet, you will soon, what would drive you to vote or what would drive you to not vote? Stay home or somehow keep you from engaging in this political process? Well, one thing that you'll often hear folks say is, does my vote matter? Does my vote matter? And the typical response that you would get if you say that is, well, if everyone thought that, well, then democracy really won't function. So yes, your vote does matter. So that's the high level way of thinking about it."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Does my vote matter? And the typical response that you would get if you say that is, well, if everyone thought that, well, then democracy really won't function. So yes, your vote does matter. So that's the high level way of thinking about it. But everyone thinks about this to a certain degree. And this idea of thinking about whether your vote matters, a fancy way of describing that is, you're thinking about your political efficacy. Political efficacy, fancy political science term."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that's the high level way of thinking about it. But everyone thinks about this to a certain degree. And this idea of thinking about whether your vote matters, a fancy way of describing that is, you're thinking about your political efficacy. Political efficacy, fancy political science term. But it's really just this idea of, what's my belief about how politically effective I can be when I vote? If I am in a battleground state, say Florida, where even presidential elections have turned on a few hundreds of votes in Florida, you might say, hey, I have high political efficacy. My vote does matter there."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Political efficacy, fancy political science term. But it's really just this idea of, what's my belief about how politically effective I can be when I vote? If I am in a battleground state, say Florida, where even presidential elections have turned on a few hundreds of votes in Florida, you might say, hey, I have high political efficacy. My vote does matter there. But some folks who live in a state that might be strongly leaning towards one party or another during a presidential election, say a California that tends to go to a Democrat, or say a Texas that tends to go to a Republican, regardless of which party you are, you say, well, if I'm just one more Republican vote in Texas, does my vote matter? If I'm one more Democratic vote in California, does my vote matter? I would encourage you in both cases, your vote does matter, everyone believe that, then our democracy does not function."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "My vote does matter there. But some folks who live in a state that might be strongly leaning towards one party or another during a presidential election, say a California that tends to go to a Democrat, or say a Texas that tends to go to a Republican, regardless of which party you are, you say, well, if I'm just one more Republican vote in Texas, does my vote matter? If I'm one more Democratic vote in California, does my vote matter? I would encourage you in both cases, your vote does matter, everyone believe that, then our democracy does not function. Now, a related idea to political efficacy is this idea of, well, just how engaged are people? So I'll call that engagement. And this might be, well, how much do they care?"}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I would encourage you in both cases, your vote does matter, everyone believe that, then our democracy does not function. Now, a related idea to political efficacy is this idea of, well, just how engaged are people? So I'll call that engagement. And this might be, well, how much do they care? So beyond does my vote matter, there is a notion of do I care? There are certain elections where you might really like one candidate or might really dislike another candidate. You might think, hey, there's some big issues on the table that really affect my life, so I might be more engaged."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this might be, well, how much do they care? So beyond does my vote matter, there is a notion of do I care? There are certain elections where you might really like one candidate or might really dislike another candidate. You might think, hey, there's some big issues on the table that really affect my life, so I might be more engaged. Or frankly, the various candidates or the various political parties or community organizations might just be better at engaging the population. Now, a third dimension beyond whether people believe their vote matters or how engaged they are in the issues or the candidates is the structure around voting itself. What state laws are there around voting?"}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You might think, hey, there's some big issues on the table that really affect my life, so I might be more engaged. Or frankly, the various candidates or the various political parties or community organizations might just be better at engaging the population. Now, a third dimension beyond whether people believe their vote matters or how engaged they are in the issues or the candidates is the structure around voting itself. What state laws are there around voting? And how easy or how hard is it to vote? So for example, if there's a big window of time where people can vote and if the polling places are really accessible, especially if they're available on, say, a holiday, then it might be easier for people to actually go to vote. But on the other hand, if they aren't that accessible or if it's on a day where a lot of folks might need to work or certain demographics might need to work, well, they might be less likely to turn out."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What state laws are there around voting? And how easy or how hard is it to vote? So for example, if there's a big window of time where people can vote and if the polling places are really accessible, especially if they're available on, say, a holiday, then it might be easier for people to actually go to vote. But on the other hand, if they aren't that accessible or if it's on a day where a lot of folks might need to work or certain demographics might need to work, well, they might be less likely to turn out. You also have laws around absentee ballots or people being able to vote ahead of time. The easier it is logistically to vote, the more accessible it is, you're gonna get a higher turnout. Now, political scientists don't just study voter turnout to understand the past."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But on the other hand, if they aren't that accessible or if it's on a day where a lot of folks might need to work or certain demographics might need to work, well, they might be less likely to turn out. You also have laws around absentee ballots or people being able to vote ahead of time. The easier it is logistically to vote, the more accessible it is, you're gonna get a higher turnout. Now, political scientists don't just study voter turnout to understand the past. They look at the past to try to make predictions about the future. At the next congressional election, the next presidential election, as they're trying to figure out which way it might go, you can't just survey people alone and say, well, are you gonna vote for this candidate or that candidate because you also have to think about how likely are they to vote. And that likelihood could be based on various factors."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, political scientists don't just study voter turnout to understand the past. They look at the past to try to make predictions about the future. At the next congressional election, the next presidential election, as they're trying to figure out which way it might go, you can't just survey people alone and say, well, are you gonna vote for this candidate or that candidate because you also have to think about how likely are they to vote. And that likelihood could be based on various factors. It might be based on their age. It might be based on their race. It might be based on their education level."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that likelihood could be based on various factors. It might be based on their age. It might be based on their race. It might be based on their education level. And to appreciate that, let's start taking a look at some data. This chart right over here shows voter turnout by sex and age in the 2008 US presidential election where the blue bars are males and the red bars are females. And then you could see that in the different age groups."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It might be based on their education level. And to appreciate that, let's start taking a look at some data. This chart right over here shows voter turnout by sex and age in the 2008 US presidential election where the blue bars are males and the red bars are females. And then you could see that in the different age groups. And so pause this video. It's just fun to look at these things. What takeaways are there here?"}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then you could see that in the different age groups. And so pause this video. It's just fun to look at these things. What takeaways are there here? Well, you can see that if you look at all of the eligible voters, total 18 years and over, that women had a higher voter turnout than men. 60.4% of eligible women voted, only 55.7% of men. Think about why that might be."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What takeaways are there here? Well, you can see that if you look at all of the eligible voters, total 18 years and over, that women had a higher voter turnout than men. 60.4% of eligible women voted, only 55.7% of men. Think about why that might be. What beliefs might women have around their own political efficacy relative to men? Maybe they're more engaged. Maybe there's issues on the table that they care more about."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Think about why that might be. What beliefs might women have around their own political efficacy relative to men? Maybe they're more engaged. Maybe there's issues on the table that they care more about. And then if you look by age group, that trend tends to be true. It's most pronounced at the younger age groups, but then things get more and more equal as we go to the older age groups. The only place where that trend breaks down is in 75 years and over."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe there's issues on the table that they care more about. And then if you look by age group, that trend tends to be true. It's most pronounced at the younger age groups, but then things get more and more equal as we go to the older age groups. The only place where that trend breaks down is in 75 years and over. And then you also have the general trend that older folks are more likely to vote. Once again, why is that? Here's another interesting chart."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The only place where that trend breaks down is in 75 years and over. And then you also have the general trend that older folks are more likely to vote. Once again, why is that? Here's another interesting chart. This is voter turnout by educational attainment for the same US presidential election, 2008. So you can see that on average, across all education levels, you have this voter turnout around 58.2%. But the more educated people get, the more they're likely, or at least in that election, the more likely they were to actually vote."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Here's another interesting chart. This is voter turnout by educational attainment for the same US presidential election, 2008. So you can see that on average, across all education levels, you have this voter turnout around 58.2%. But the more educated people get, the more they're likely, or at least in that election, the more likely they were to actually vote. The more educated people are, they might feel more engaged, they might have a better belief that their vote is effective, so they have a belief around political efficacy. This is voter turnout in the 2008 US presidential election by race and ethnicity. And so here you see that in that election, white voters had 64.8% turnout, black voters, 60.8%."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the more educated people get, the more they're likely, or at least in that election, the more likely they were to actually vote. The more educated people are, they might feel more engaged, they might have a better belief that their vote is effective, so they have a belief around political efficacy. This is voter turnout in the 2008 US presidential election by race and ethnicity. And so here you see that in that election, white voters had 64.8% turnout, black voters, 60.8%. And you can see Asian and Hispanic voters were much, much lower. What does this say about political engagement? And what does it say about their beliefs around political efficacy?"}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so here you see that in that election, white voters had 64.8% turnout, black voters, 60.8%. And you can see Asian and Hispanic voters were much, much lower. What does this say about political engagement? And what does it say about their beliefs around political efficacy? And to see trends over time, I'm going to go to the site of fairvote.org, which is a really great nonpartisan nonprofit that is trying to think about how do we get a better democracy? So this diagram right over here shows voter turnout rates from 1916 to 2016. And there's two different lines here."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what does it say about their beliefs around political efficacy? And to see trends over time, I'm going to go to the site of fairvote.org, which is a really great nonpartisan nonprofit that is trying to think about how do we get a better democracy? So this diagram right over here shows voter turnout rates from 1916 to 2016. And there's two different lines here. The top one is in presidential elections. This is the 2016 presidential election. And this bottom line right over here is in midterm elections."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there's two different lines here. The top one is in presidential elections. This is the 2016 presidential election. And this bottom line right over here is in midterm elections. So this is where there isn't someone running for president. Why do you think that there's such a big gap here that pretty consistently, you have a much higher voter turnout in this, depending on what year you look at, but say in 2016, you have a 60% voter turnout, while in the midterm election of 2014, you didn't even break 40%. You had a little under 36% voter turnout."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this bottom line right over here is in midterm elections. So this is where there isn't someone running for president. Why do you think that there's such a big gap here that pretty consistently, you have a much higher voter turnout in this, depending on what year you look at, but say in 2016, you have a 60% voter turnout, while in the midterm election of 2014, you didn't even break 40%. You had a little under 36% voter turnout. Why do you think you have this big gap? Well, you could probably turn to these ideas of political efficacy and engagement. One thing that people talk about around congressional seats is that there tends to not be a lot of turnover around it."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You had a little under 36% voter turnout. Why do you think you have this big gap? Well, you could probably turn to these ideas of political efficacy and engagement. One thing that people talk about around congressional seats is that there tends to not be a lot of turnover around it. In other videos, we've talked about how the districts might be shaped to benefit incumbents, that the entire process might be benefiting incumbents. So people might say, hey, I have a very low political efficacy here. Most congresspeople tend to stay in office, so maybe that's why they don't really go out to vote."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One thing that people talk about around congressional seats is that there tends to not be a lot of turnover around it. In other videos, we've talked about how the districts might be shaped to benefit incumbents, that the entire process might be benefiting incumbents. So people might say, hey, I have a very low political efficacy here. Most congresspeople tend to stay in office, so maybe that's why they don't really go out to vote. And there might be an engagement thing going on, that on presidential years, where also congresspeople are up for re-election or up for election, the reason why people go out to vote is presidential elections are these really big, dramatic things. They take over the press. They take over everyone's attention."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Most congresspeople tend to stay in office, so maybe that's why they don't really go out to vote. And there might be an engagement thing going on, that on presidential years, where also congresspeople are up for re-election or up for election, the reason why people go out to vote is presidential elections are these really big, dramatic things. They take over the press. They take over everyone's attention. Now, another interesting thing to think about is the trend. Why, say, in presidential elections, actually in presidential and midterm elections, do you have such high engagement in the 1960s relative to, say, the 1980s and 1990s, where things got pretty low? One argument could be that the 1960s was a time of very high political engagement."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They take over everyone's attention. Now, another interesting thing to think about is the trend. Why, say, in presidential elections, actually in presidential and midterm elections, do you have such high engagement in the 1960s relative to, say, the 1980s and 1990s, where things got pretty low? One argument could be that the 1960s was a time of very high political engagement. You had the Vietnam War going on. You had the Civil Rights Movement. Now, if we scroll down on Fair Vote, right over here, we can see voter turnout in the 2016 elections by state."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One argument could be that the 1960s was a time of very high political engagement. You had the Vietnam War going on. You had the Civil Rights Movement. Now, if we scroll down on Fair Vote, right over here, we can see voter turnout in the 2016 elections by state. And the deeper the purple here, the higher the turnout. And so what patterns do you see here? And I'll give you a hint."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, if we scroll down on Fair Vote, right over here, we can see voter turnout in the 2016 elections by state. And the deeper the purple here, the higher the turnout. And so what patterns do you see here? And I'll give you a hint. Think about which states are battleground states, the ones that could flip either way or the ones that could have flipped either way in the 2016 election. Well, you could see the deeper purple are in states like Florida or in states like Ohio or Wisconsin. And it's indeed in Michigan."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I'll give you a hint. Think about which states are battleground states, the ones that could flip either way or the ones that could have flipped either way in the 2016 election. Well, you could see the deeper purple are in states like Florida or in states like Ohio or Wisconsin. And it's indeed in Michigan. These indeed are battleground states. So you could imagine folks in those states believed that they had higher political efficacy. Now, in the 2014 elections, you don't see it as dramatic."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's indeed in Michigan. These indeed are battleground states. So you could imagine folks in those states believed that they had higher political efficacy. Now, in the 2014 elections, you don't see it as dramatic. This is a midterm election year. So people are thinking a lot less about the Electoral College and presidential elections. So it isn't as all or nothing as they are in the Electoral College in the presidential elections."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, in the 2014 elections, you don't see it as dramatic. This is a midterm election year. So people are thinking a lot less about the Electoral College and presidential elections. So it isn't as all or nothing as they are in the Electoral College in the presidential elections. And so you don't see it as pronounced. But if you go back to 2012, which was a presidential election year, you see the same pattern again, that the battleground states are a deeper color. So I will leave you there."}, {"video_title": "Voter turnout   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it isn't as all or nothing as they are in the Electoral College in the presidential elections. And so you don't see it as pronounced. But if you go back to 2012, which was a presidential election year, you see the same pattern again, that the battleground states are a deeper color. So I will leave you there. You should vote. That's just my public service message. But it's interesting to think about why in general voter turnout might change."}, {"video_title": "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.mp3", "Sentence": "So these were really kind of op-eds that they were publishing to convince people. But this is a great passage. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this. You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. And it goes on to talk about how we can keep government from becoming too powerful by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may by their mutual relations be the means of keeping each other in their proper places."}, {"video_title": "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.mp3", "Sentence": "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this. You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. And it goes on to talk about how we can keep government from becoming too powerful by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may by their mutual relations be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. And so remember, this was in defense of the Constitution. So arguably, this was in place, that somehow this Constitution had contrived an interior structure so that the several constituent parts of government by their mutual relations would keep each other in their proper places. Or you could even say keep each other in check."}, {"video_title": "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.mp3", "Sentence": "And it goes on to talk about how we can keep government from becoming too powerful by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may by their mutual relations be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. And so remember, this was in defense of the Constitution. So arguably, this was in place, that somehow this Constitution had contrived an interior structure so that the several constituent parts of government by their mutual relations would keep each other in their proper places. Or you could even say keep each other in check. So in line with this passage, there's really two big ideas embedded in the Constitution as to how our government is structured. The first is this notion of separation of powers. We have three branches of government."}, {"video_title": "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.mp3", "Sentence": "Or you could even say keep each other in check. So in line with this passage, there's really two big ideas embedded in the Constitution as to how our government is structured. The first is this notion of separation of powers. We have three branches of government. You have your executive, headed by the president. You have your legislative branch, which is Congress. Legislative."}, {"video_title": "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.mp3", "Sentence": "We have three branches of government. You have your executive, headed by the president. You have your legislative branch, which is Congress. Legislative. And you have your judicial branch, which is the US Supreme Court. And this notion of separation of powers is that you have these fairly independent branches of government, and the idea was to make them reasonably independent so that one group, one branch could not take over the others. The legislative branch, Congress, they're charged with budget, and they're charged with creating and passing laws."}, {"video_title": "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.mp3", "Sentence": "Legislative. And you have your judicial branch, which is the US Supreme Court. And this notion of separation of powers is that you have these fairly independent branches of government, and the idea was to make them reasonably independent so that one group, one branch could not take over the others. The legislative branch, Congress, they're charged with budget, and they're charged with creating and passing laws. The executive branch, headed by the president, is supposed to execute, run the government based on the laws that Congress passes. And you have the judicial branch that would decide whether things, say laws that Congress is passing or actions that the executive's taking, they say, hey, is that constitutional? Or they can interpret laws."}, {"video_title": "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.mp3", "Sentence": "The legislative branch, Congress, they're charged with budget, and they're charged with creating and passing laws. The executive branch, headed by the president, is supposed to execute, run the government based on the laws that Congress passes. And you have the judicial branch that would decide whether things, say laws that Congress is passing or actions that the executive's taking, they say, hey, is that constitutional? Or they can interpret laws. So these different powers are put into these different branches. The powers are separate. Now related to that is another very powerful idea, and this is keeping each other in their proper places."}, {"video_title": "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.mp3", "Sentence": "Or they can interpret laws. So these different powers are put into these different branches. The powers are separate. Now related to that is another very powerful idea, and this is keeping each other in their proper places. And so this is the idea of checks and balances. Each of these can't do whatever they want. They're all balancing each other."}, {"video_title": "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.mp3", "Sentence": "Now related to that is another very powerful idea, and this is keeping each other in their proper places. And so this is the idea of checks and balances. Each of these can't do whatever they want. They're all balancing each other. They all have checks on each other. For example, the executive can veto, the legislative branch can veto a law passed by Congress, but then the legislative branch can override that veto. The legislative branch, they control the budget."}, {"video_title": "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.mp3", "Sentence": "They're all balancing each other. They all have checks on each other. For example, the executive can veto, the legislative branch can veto a law passed by Congress, but then the legislative branch can override that veto. The legislative branch, they control the budget. So it's not like the president or the executive can do whatever they want, or that they can just spend as much money as they want. And the judicial branch in both cases can be a check, and they're saying, hey, you're doing something that is unconstitutional. Or we're going to interpret the laws that the legislature has passed."}, {"video_title": "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.mp3", "Sentence": "The legislative branch, they control the budget. So it's not like the president or the executive can do whatever they want, or that they can just spend as much money as they want. And the judicial branch in both cases can be a check, and they're saying, hey, you're doing something that is unconstitutional. Or we're going to interpret the laws that the legislature has passed. The executive appoints the judicial, but even there, you have to get congressional buy-in. So once again, you have these independent branches of government, all the power isn't in one, and they are interdependent. They provide checks and balances on each other."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I put the word third in quotation marks because there's more than one third party. So you could even think of it as a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh parties. But the reason why people say third parties is because in the United States, you have two dominant parties. You have the Republicans and you have the Democrats. And so any other party is considered to be a third party after those first two big dominant parties. So here are some of the logos of some of the, I would say, major third parties in the United States. And I'm gonna put major in quotes because they don't have much of a say in our government today."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have the Republicans and you have the Democrats. And so any other party is considered to be a third party after those first two big dominant parties. So here are some of the logos of some of the, I would say, major third parties in the United States. And I'm gonna put major in quotes because they don't have much of a say in our government today. You have the Libertarian Party that is very focused on people's individual liberties. They generally think about the government doing as little as possible, that whenever the government tries to get bigger, it infringes on people's liberties, either in the economic sphere or in the social sphere. The Green Party is also very pro-civil liberties, but you can also imagine, because it's called the Green Party, it is very concerned with the environment."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I'm gonna put major in quotes because they don't have much of a say in our government today. You have the Libertarian Party that is very focused on people's individual liberties. They generally think about the government doing as little as possible, that whenever the government tries to get bigger, it infringes on people's liberties, either in the economic sphere or in the social sphere. The Green Party is also very pro-civil liberties, but you can also imagine, because it's called the Green Party, it is very concerned with the environment. Now this third third party, and there's many more than just these three, this is the Reform Party. And the Reform Party is really interesting because it was started by Ross Perot in 1995. And this was after, in 1992, Ross Perot ran as an independent candidate for president, and he did surprisingly well."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Green Party is also very pro-civil liberties, but you can also imagine, because it's called the Green Party, it is very concerned with the environment. Now this third third party, and there's many more than just these three, this is the Reform Party. And the Reform Party is really interesting because it was started by Ross Perot in 1995. And this was after, in 1992, Ross Perot ran as an independent candidate for president, and he did surprisingly well. He got nearly 20% of the popular vote. But an interesting question is, even though he got 20% of the popular vote in 1992, and even though in the Reform Party it had some reasonable support even in the 1996 election, how come we don't see congresspeople who represent the Reform Party? And there's two real answers here."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this was after, in 1992, Ross Perot ran as an independent candidate for president, and he did surprisingly well. He got nearly 20% of the popular vote. But an interesting question is, even though he got 20% of the popular vote in 1992, and even though in the Reform Party it had some reasonable support even in the 1996 election, how come we don't see congresspeople who represent the Reform Party? And there's two real answers here. One is the winner-take-all system. Winner-take-all. So if we're dealing with a situation where even if a third party gets 20% of the vote, they're not going to get any representation for it."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there's two real answers here. One is the winner-take-all system. Winner-take-all. So if we're dealing with a situation where even if a third party gets 20% of the vote, they're not going to get any representation for it. And you can contrast that with a proportional representation system like you have in some parliaments. So in some countries, their parliament is elected by proportional representation. So let's say that 20% vote for Party A, let's say 70% vote for Party B, and then the remainder 10% vote for Party C. In a parliamentary proportional representation system, Party C would get roughly 10% of the seats in the parliament."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if we're dealing with a situation where even if a third party gets 20% of the vote, they're not going to get any representation for it. And you can contrast that with a proportional representation system like you have in some parliaments. So in some countries, their parliament is elected by proportional representation. So let's say that 20% vote for Party A, let's say 70% vote for Party B, and then the remainder 10% vote for Party C. In a parliamentary proportional representation system, Party C would get roughly 10% of the seats in the parliament. But that's not the way it works in our government. In our government, in almost any jurisdiction, if you had a voter breakdown like this, well, Party B would win, or maybe sometimes Party A would win. And even if Party C does get some votes, it's never going to cross the threshold to actually get representation."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's say that 20% vote for Party A, let's say 70% vote for Party B, and then the remainder 10% vote for Party C. In a parliamentary proportional representation system, Party C would get roughly 10% of the seats in the parliament. But that's not the way it works in our government. In our government, in almost any jurisdiction, if you had a voter breakdown like this, well, Party B would win, or maybe sometimes Party A would win. And even if Party C does get some votes, it's never going to cross the threshold to actually get representation. Now, with that said, this doesn't fully explain why we don't see more third party representation in, say, the United States Congress. Because there are countries that have more third party representation, even though they don't have proportional representation. Now, another reason that's often cited for why we don't see third party representation is that the major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, oftentimes incorporate the third party's messages into their own."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And even if Party C does get some votes, it's never going to cross the threshold to actually get representation. Now, with that said, this doesn't fully explain why we don't see more third party representation in, say, the United States Congress. Because there are countries that have more third party representation, even though they don't have proportional representation. Now, another reason that's often cited for why we don't see third party representation is that the major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, oftentimes incorporate the third party's messages into their own. To get a sense of this, I'm gonna show you a little bit of an excerpt from a Reform Party ad in 1996. And at that time, they were saying things that neither the Democrats or the Republicans were saying very strongly. And I want you to think about when you hear it, whether some of those messages have later on become parts of either the Republican or the Democratic candidates' messages."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, another reason that's often cited for why we don't see third party representation is that the major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, oftentimes incorporate the third party's messages into their own. To get a sense of this, I'm gonna show you a little bit of an excerpt from a Reform Party ad in 1996. And at that time, they were saying things that neither the Democrats or the Republicans were saying very strongly. And I want you to think about when you hear it, whether some of those messages have later on become parts of either the Republican or the Democratic candidates' messages. Washington is selling our future to the special interests. Don't waste your vote on someone who will sell you out. Ross Perot is the only candidate who will work for our interest instead of the special interest."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I want you to think about when you hear it, whether some of those messages have later on become parts of either the Republican or the Democratic candidates' messages. Washington is selling our future to the special interests. Don't waste your vote on someone who will sell you out. Ross Perot is the only candidate who will work for our interest instead of the special interest. Just vote for Ross because you own this country. So as you saw in that ad from the Reform Party, there's a lot of talk about the influence of special interest and how people need to take their government back. And if you fast forward to the 2016 presidential election, you had two major forces, actually one on the Republican side and one on the Democratic side."}, {"video_title": "Third parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Ross Perot is the only candidate who will work for our interest instead of the special interest. Just vote for Ross because you own this country. So as you saw in that ad from the Reform Party, there's a lot of talk about the influence of special interest and how people need to take their government back. And if you fast forward to the 2016 presidential election, you had two major forces, actually one on the Republican side and one on the Democratic side. On the Republican side, you have Donald Trump, who's echoing the need to focus on special interest, that Washington is a swamp and it needs to be drained. It wasn't obvious from that ad, but Ross Perot in 1992 was ringing the alarm bells about NAFTA and free trade and saying why it would be bad for the United States. And in 2016, you heard many of these same things from the Republican candidate, Donald Trump."}, {"video_title": "Letter from a Birmingham Jail   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What we're going to read together in this video is what has become known as Martin Luther King's letter from a Birmingham jail, which he wrote from a jail cell in 1963 after he and several of his associates were arrested in Birmingham, Alabama as they nonviolently protested segregation there. And I'm going to read an excerpt of it. I encourage you to read it in its entirety. It is one of the most powerful documents, frankly, I have ever read. And Martin Luther King often gets a lot of credit as an amazing speaker. People say, hey, he could read the phone book and it would move people. But this also speaks to what an incredible writer he was."}, {"video_title": "Letter from a Birmingham Jail   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It is one of the most powerful documents, frankly, I have ever read. And Martin Luther King often gets a lot of credit as an amazing speaker. People say, hey, he could read the phone book and it would move people. But this also speaks to what an incredible writer he was. Not only is it moving, but it really gives the philosophical underpinnings of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And many people attribute the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed by Congress as being heavily influenced by Martin Luther King's letter. Now, what motivated Martin Luther King to write this letter was a statement made in a newspaper by eight Alabama clergymen, which encouraged the protesters to wait, saying that yes, we are sympathetic to the injustices, but they should be resolved in the courts and not through the type of protest, the type of tension that Martin Luther King and his fellow protesters were creating."}, {"video_title": "Letter from a Birmingham Jail   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But this also speaks to what an incredible writer he was. Not only is it moving, but it really gives the philosophical underpinnings of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And many people attribute the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed by Congress as being heavily influenced by Martin Luther King's letter. Now, what motivated Martin Luther King to write this letter was a statement made in a newspaper by eight Alabama clergymen, which encouraged the protesters to wait, saying that yes, we are sympathetic to the injustices, but they should be resolved in the courts and not through the type of protest, the type of tension that Martin Luther King and his fellow protesters were creating. And so here's just an excerpt of what Martin Luther King wrote. You may well ask, why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, and so forth?"}, {"video_title": "Letter from a Birmingham Jail   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, what motivated Martin Luther King to write this letter was a statement made in a newspaper by eight Alabama clergymen, which encouraged the protesters to wait, saying that yes, we are sympathetic to the injustices, but they should be resolved in the courts and not through the type of protest, the type of tension that Martin Luther King and his fellow protesters were creating. And so here's just an excerpt of what Martin Luther King wrote. You may well ask, why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path? You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action."}, {"video_title": "Letter from a Birmingham Jail   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path? You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resistor may sound rather shocking, but I must confess that I am not afraid of the word tension."}, {"video_title": "Letter from a Birmingham Jail   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resistor may sound rather shocking, but I must confess that I am not afraid of the word tension. I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Electoral College   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In this series of videos about the Constitution, we've been discussing all the elements of balance and compromise that appear in the Constitution. The balance between large states and small states, and between the different branches of government. But in this video, I wanna talk about one particular compromise made at the Constitutional Convention over how the President of the United States is elected, and that is the Electoral College. I think these compromises reveal some real conflict among the framers over how they think the American Revolution did. Did they think that the Revolution went too far? Had created too much equality and too much liberty for people who weren't ready to deal with it? Or did it not go far enough?"}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Electoral College   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I think these compromises reveal some real conflict among the framers over how they think the American Revolution did. Did they think that the Revolution went too far? Had created too much equality and too much liberty for people who weren't ready to deal with it? Or did it not go far enough? So let's talk about this idea that perhaps the Revolution went too far. That the average American Joe, or Jedediah, I guess could be the revolutionary version of Joe, had too much a sense of his own importance, was going to tear down the social structures that had seemed natural during the American Revolution. The wealthy elites, the middling farmers, the rough and rowdy workers."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Electoral College   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or did it not go far enough? So let's talk about this idea that perhaps the Revolution went too far. That the average American Joe, or Jedediah, I guess could be the revolutionary version of Joe, had too much a sense of his own importance, was going to tear down the social structures that had seemed natural during the American Revolution. The wealthy elites, the middling farmers, the rough and rowdy workers. You'll remember that one of the incidents that led to the decision to revise the Articles of Confederation was Shays' Rebellion, in which a group of unruly farmers, Revolutionary War veterans, had marched against the governor of Massachusetts. So the people were used to rebelling, and they first had rebelled against Great Britain, but now that war was over, and they started rebelling against state governments. So there's a real sense throughout the Constitution that the founders were attempting to balance democracy, a representative government, with what they saw as too much democracy, or mobocracy in their words."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Electoral College   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The wealthy elites, the middling farmers, the rough and rowdy workers. You'll remember that one of the incidents that led to the decision to revise the Articles of Confederation was Shays' Rebellion, in which a group of unruly farmers, Revolutionary War veterans, had marched against the governor of Massachusetts. So the people were used to rebelling, and they first had rebelled against Great Britain, but now that war was over, and they started rebelling against state governments. So there's a real sense throughout the Constitution that the founders were attempting to balance democracy, a representative government, with what they saw as too much democracy, or mobocracy in their words. That unruly mobs who perhaps lacked the virtue of elite, educated citizens, would foolishly tear down government that they weren't prepared to be part of. Now you see that in things like the Senate. The members of the Senate were appointed, not elected, up until the 20th century."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Electoral College   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So there's a real sense throughout the Constitution that the founders were attempting to balance democracy, a representative government, with what they saw as too much democracy, or mobocracy in their words. That unruly mobs who perhaps lacked the virtue of elite, educated citizens, would foolishly tear down government that they weren't prepared to be part of. Now you see that in things like the Senate. The members of the Senate were appointed, not elected, up until the 20th century. The idea that there had to be one part of the legislative branch that was selected by the better sort of men, the sort of people who really knew what good leadership looked like, not by a mob that might be swayed by any fancy-talking politician. The founders didn't want all white men to be able to vote. They wanted voting to be reserved to the elite, the propertied, the educated, those who were prepared to be virtuous citizens."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Electoral College   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The members of the Senate were appointed, not elected, up until the 20th century. The idea that there had to be one part of the legislative branch that was selected by the better sort of men, the sort of people who really knew what good leadership looked like, not by a mob that might be swayed by any fancy-talking politician. The founders didn't want all white men to be able to vote. They wanted voting to be reserved to the elite, the propertied, the educated, those who were prepared to be virtuous citizens. It wouldn't be until the 1820s that all white men could vote in elections, regardless of how much property they owned. Of course, it wouldn't be until the late 19th and 20th centuries that women and minorities would get the right to vote. So they had a very dim idea of the average citizen's ability to engage productively in democracy."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Electoral College   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They wanted voting to be reserved to the elite, the propertied, the educated, those who were prepared to be virtuous citizens. It wouldn't be until the 1820s that all white men could vote in elections, regardless of how much property they owned. Of course, it wouldn't be until the late 19th and 20th centuries that women and minorities would get the right to vote. So they had a very dim idea of the average citizen's ability to engage productively in democracy. And another way that they show this in the Constitution is in the process of electing the president. Article Two establishes the executive branch, and it also discusses how presidential elections shall work. And it's a kind of complex process, the electoral college, but the simple version is that instead of having citizens vote directly for the president, the citizens would vote in each state, and then that state would have electors equal to the number of senators and representatives."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Electoral College   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they had a very dim idea of the average citizen's ability to engage productively in democracy. And another way that they show this in the Constitution is in the process of electing the president. Article Two establishes the executive branch, and it also discusses how presidential elections shall work. And it's a kind of complex process, the electoral college, but the simple version is that instead of having citizens vote directly for the president, the citizens would vote in each state, and then that state would have electors equal to the number of senators and representatives. And those electors would then cast votes for the president, and whoever got the most electoral votes should be president. And we still have this system today. This is a map of the current number of electoral votes that each state has."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So John, how has the role of the presidency changed over the last several hundreds of years? It's changed dramatically. First of all, when the founders created the presidency, they left it kind of loose. They weren't exactly very specific about what a president would do. And they realized that the first president, George Washington, and this is why he was so important, was a man of virtue and that he, in his behavior, would set the precedence for the next president after him. That means the job is basically handed off by tradition from president to president. And the reason why they didn't know what a president should do is that there wasn't a notion of a, there wasn't a precedent for being a president."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They weren't exactly very specific about what a president would do. And they realized that the first president, George Washington, and this is why he was so important, was a man of virtue and that he, in his behavior, would set the precedence for the next president after him. That means the job is basically handed off by tradition from president to president. And the reason why they didn't know what a president should do is that there wasn't a notion of a, there wasn't a precedent for being a president. That's right. They knew what they didn't want. They didn't want two things."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the reason why they didn't know what a president should do is that there wasn't a notion of a, there wasn't a precedent for being a president. That's right. They knew what they didn't want. They didn't want two things. They didn't want a king. They'd just gotten rid of one of those. They didn't want a king and they also didn't want somebody who was whipped around by mob rule."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They didn't want two things. They didn't want a king. They'd just gotten rid of one of those. They didn't want a king and they also didn't want somebody who was whipped around by mob rule. They didn't, so those were the two things they were trying to get between. But a president has a lot of room to move in between the two of them and they thought, well, put it in the hands of a virtuous American, George Washington, a good, first, virtuous American, and that person, through their virtue and character, would stay in the right place, would not become a king and would not give over to the mob. But it also meant that it relied on the character of the person in the presidency."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They didn't want a king and they also didn't want somebody who was whipped around by mob rule. They didn't, so those were the two things they were trying to get between. But a president has a lot of room to move in between the two of them and they thought, well, put it in the hands of a virtuous American, George Washington, a good, first, virtuous American, and that person, through their virtue and character, would stay in the right place, would not become a king and would not give over to the mob. But it also meant that it relied on the character of the person in the presidency. And so each president in subsequent years has taken shape in the presidency, both by what was determined by their predecessors, but also by what they could do in the job. And what's happened is a job that started out very weak in the American system has now become one where some people think of all of the entire of American government as the president. And that's not what the founders wanted."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it also meant that it relied on the character of the person in the presidency. And so each president in subsequent years has taken shape in the presidency, both by what was determined by their predecessors, but also by what they could do in the job. And what's happened is a job that started out very weak in the American system has now become one where some people think of all of the entire of American government as the president. And that's not what the founders wanted. But how does that evolve? Because obviously the Constitution talks about the powers of the president. So how does it change so much over time?"}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's not what the founders wanted. But how does that evolve? Because obviously the Constitution talks about the powers of the president. So how does it change so much over time? What happened was when they originally created the presidency, there was a debate. And the debate was we need somebody who can move quickly. We can't always be calling them into Congress because, of course, when America was started, it used to take several months or sometimes it would take weeks to get on a horse and get to Washington."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So how does it change so much over time? What happened was when they originally created the presidency, there was a debate. And the debate was we need somebody who can move quickly. We can't always be calling them into Congress because, of course, when America was started, it used to take several months or sometimes it would take weeks to get on a horse and get to Washington. So we need an executive who can move quickly. Well, what happened was in various wars, America needed to move quickly, and they needed one person to act on behalf of the entire union. Well, there's only one person who can do that."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We can't always be calling them into Congress because, of course, when America was started, it used to take several months or sometimes it would take weeks to get on a horse and get to Washington. So we need an executive who can move quickly. Well, what happened was in various wars, America needed to move quickly, and they needed one person to act on behalf of the entire union. Well, there's only one person who can do that. But as people wanted quick action, they handed over more power to the president. Congress, which used to fight with the president a lot during the Second World War and then on into our present day, has given up a lot of its power to the president, one of the key ones being the power to make war. Presidents can now go and make war."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, there's only one person who can do that. But as people wanted quick action, they handed over more power to the president. Congress, which used to fight with the president a lot during the Second World War and then on into our present day, has given up a lot of its power to the president, one of the key ones being the power to make war. Presidents can now go and make war. Well, that's not the original way it was arranged. And they've done it because there is a hunger in the country for quick action. But the problem and challenge of that is if you invest somebody in with power to do things quickly in an emergency, they hold on to that power and they don't let it go."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Presidents can now go and make war. Well, that's not the original way it was arranged. And they've done it because there is a hunger in the country for quick action. But the problem and challenge of that is if you invest somebody in with power to do things quickly in an emergency, they hold on to that power and they don't let it go. And that means that they start doing things when it's not an emergency that is then not vetted by the American system. And that system has both the judiciary and the legislative, which are meant to hold back a president who's trying to act too quickly and do too much. Just to go on this notion of making war as an example, there's clear powers that Congress has to approve a war, has the power of the purse."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the problem and challenge of that is if you invest somebody in with power to do things quickly in an emergency, they hold on to that power and they don't let it go. And that means that they start doing things when it's not an emergency that is then not vetted by the American system. And that system has both the judiciary and the legislative, which are meant to hold back a president who's trying to act too quickly and do too much. Just to go on this notion of making war as an example, there's clear powers that Congress has to approve a war, has the power of the purse. So how did this happen? Do they just do that as a ritual now? Well, basically there are times and Congress tries and makes attempts to try to pull power back from the president."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Just to go on this notion of making war as an example, there's clear powers that Congress has to approve a war, has the power of the purse. So how did this happen? Do they just do that as a ritual now? Well, basically there are times and Congress tries and makes attempts to try to pull power back from the president. The only times they've been successful after the Second World War is really after Watergate. The view was that the president had gotten too powerful, that President Nixon, who left office, had abused the office. And so Congress tried to pull some power back."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, basically there are times and Congress tries and makes attempts to try to pull power back from the president. The only times they've been successful after the Second World War is really after Watergate. The view was that the president had gotten too powerful, that President Nixon, who left office, had abused the office. And so Congress tried to pull some power back. But again, political parties, which are now very close to the president, it used to be that political parties were not so powerful. If I'm a Republican in Congress and I want my Republican president to do well, I'm going to give him the power he wants because we're connected. In the old days, if the president in the office was my party, well, that's nice."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so Congress tried to pull some power back. But again, political parties, which are now very close to the president, it used to be that political parties were not so powerful. If I'm a Republican in Congress and I want my Republican president to do well, I'm going to give him the power he wants because we're connected. In the old days, if the president in the office was my party, well, that's nice. But I've got my own views and I'm in Congress and I'm going to do what I want. And so essentially a lot of these powers that have gone to the president have been handed over to him, not with a ceremony, but just by lack of a fight by members of Congress in withdrawing from their traditional role, as the founders wanted it, as the key actor in American government. That's no longer the case."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the old days, if the president in the office was my party, well, that's nice. But I've got my own views and I'm in Congress and I'm going to do what I want. And so essentially a lot of these powers that have gone to the president have been handed over to him, not with a ceremony, but just by lack of a fight by members of Congress in withdrawing from their traditional role, as the founders wanted it, as the key actor in American government. That's no longer the case. In America today, the president is the key actor. And then every time that happens, the next president or the next several presidents say, wait, you allowed that to happen to that person. I should have that power."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's no longer the case. In America today, the president is the key actor. And then every time that happens, the next president or the next several presidents say, wait, you allowed that to happen to that person. I should have that power. That's exactly right. It's almost like the powers conveyed to the new president like the furniture in the Oval Office. And so they think, well, this chair is pretty comfortable."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I should have that power. That's exactly right. It's almost like the powers conveyed to the new president like the furniture in the Oval Office. And so they think, well, this chair is pretty comfortable. I'm not going to get rid of that and sit in the old, you know, uncomfortable wooden chair. I want all the plush trappings. And here's another reason."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so they think, well, this chair is pretty comfortable. I'm not going to get rid of that and sit in the old, you know, uncomfortable wooden chair. I want all the plush trappings. And here's another reason. American politics has created a situation, and television has made this so much worse, where people run for office promising the sun, the moon and the stars. So they say, I can, Donald Trump, when he was running, said, I alone can fix it. That is not the way the country was originally founded, that one person could fix or unfix things."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And here's another reason. American politics has created a situation, and television has made this so much worse, where people run for office promising the sun, the moon and the stars. So they say, I can, Donald Trump, when he was running, said, I alone can fix it. That is not the way the country was originally founded, that one person could fix or unfix things. It was supposed to be a country with representatives of the entire country. But politics has created a system where, whether it's a Republican or Democrat, they run by saying, I can do anything. Well, that means when you get in the office, you want those quick powers that allow you to keep those campaign promises."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So John, when our nation was founded, there was media, it was essentially newspapers. How has the evolution of media affected the evolution of political discourse? At the beginning of our country, the editors of the rival newspapers, there was no middle of the road newspaper. You were either for one side or the other. You were either a Federalist or you were with the Jeffersonian Democrats, Democratic Republicans as they called themselves. And the editors were at each other's throats so violently, they would sometimes get in fights in the street and knock each other down. So it was, and you had lawmakers who were supposed to be men of virtue, it was all men in those days, would be leaking documents."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You were either for one side or the other. You were either a Federalist or you were with the Jeffersonian Democrats, Democratic Republicans as they called themselves. And the editors were at each other's throats so violently, they would sometimes get in fights in the street and knock each other down. So it was, and you had lawmakers who were supposed to be men of virtue, it was all men in those days, would be leaking documents. Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary, and Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, would leak documents to their favorite papers in order to attack the other. And eventually George Washington had to come in and say, knock it off, fellas, because this isn't good for the country. So the bitterness carried out in the press was with us from the founding."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it was, and you had lawmakers who were supposed to be men of virtue, it was all men in those days, would be leaking documents. Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary, and Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, would leak documents to their favorite papers in order to attack the other. And eventually George Washington had to come in and say, knock it off, fellas, because this isn't good for the country. So the bitterness carried out in the press was with us from the founding. What changed over time is that it became in the interest of the newspapers particularly to appeal to a larger audience. That means you didn't want just the left or the right, you wanted both. And so that created a tradition along with a few other things where there was an attempt to give just the facts, a kind of middle of the road perspective."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the bitterness carried out in the press was with us from the founding. What changed over time is that it became in the interest of the newspapers particularly to appeal to a larger audience. That means you didn't want just the left or the right, you wanted both. And so that created a tradition along with a few other things where there was an attempt to give just the facts, a kind of middle of the road perspective. We are changing from that now where the economics of covering the news and the digital, the change where you now can have anybody speaking and gaining access to the public has created a situation where you have a more partisan press now. And we're in the middle of trying to figure out where that's going next. So this is interesting because a lot of people when they talk about, oh, well now it's getting polarized and partisan, you know, the good old days when you got the truth, the wisdom from Walter Cronkite or whoever."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so that created a tradition along with a few other things where there was an attempt to give just the facts, a kind of middle of the road perspective. We are changing from that now where the economics of covering the news and the digital, the change where you now can have anybody speaking and gaining access to the public has created a situation where you have a more partisan press now. And we're in the middle of trying to figure out where that's going next. So this is interesting because a lot of people when they talk about, oh, well now it's getting polarized and partisan, you know, the good old days when you got the truth, the wisdom from Walter Cronkite or whoever. But what you're talking about is maybe what's going on now is a little bit of a reversion back to where we started. That's right. In terms of the partisanship of the press, it is a reversion towards the early days of America."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is interesting because a lot of people when they talk about, oh, well now it's getting polarized and partisan, you know, the good old days when you got the truth, the wisdom from Walter Cronkite or whoever. But what you're talking about is maybe what's going on now is a little bit of a reversion back to where we started. That's right. In terms of the partisanship of the press, it is a reversion towards the early days of America. And in terms of the partisanship of the individual members of Congress or of the White House, what is a little bit different is that the call to virtue, which would snap people out of their partisanship, is still up for grabs. Whether the original, the founders when they fought like cats and dogs during the early years of the administrations, I mean, Thomas Jefferson was best friends with John Adams and essentially then hired a newspaper writer to undermine Adams when he was president. I mean, this was a very dirty pool."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In terms of the partisanship of the press, it is a reversion towards the early days of America. And in terms of the partisanship of the individual members of Congress or of the White House, what is a little bit different is that the call to virtue, which would snap people out of their partisanship, is still up for grabs. Whether the original, the founders when they fought like cats and dogs during the early years of the administrations, I mean, Thomas Jefferson was best friends with John Adams and essentially then hired a newspaper writer to undermine Adams when he was president. I mean, this was a very dirty pool. The argument they were making though was our country is new and what is at stake is the very survival of the American experiment. And so they were fighting for real stakes. They weren't just trying to primarily keep power."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I mean, this was a very dirty pool. The argument they were making though was our country is new and what is at stake is the very survival of the American experiment. And so they were fighting for real stakes. They weren't just trying to primarily keep power. They were really trying to make this flower bloom that they had just planted. So now the question is what role does virtue play in the American experience to pull people away from their partisanship, to make them work together for common interests? And what is that shared area of common interest?"}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They weren't just trying to primarily keep power. They were really trying to make this flower bloom that they had just planted. So now the question is what role does virtue play in the American experience to pull people away from their partisanship, to make them work together for common interests? And what is that shared area of common interest? What pulls them away from what the founders knew people would behave like dogs sometimes, but they thought they could pull away if they thought about the common interest. Well is that pull still there? So there's a lot of talk these days about the polarization of the media or the polarization of politics in general."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what is that shared area of common interest? What pulls them away from what the founders knew people would behave like dogs sometimes, but they thought they could pull away if they thought about the common interest. Well is that pull still there? So there's a lot of talk these days about the polarization of the media or the polarization of politics in general. How much of it do you think is due to things like social media or do you think it was inevitable? Well we've always had polarization in American politics, but there was a dose of something else which was a call to a higher American ideal. And also voters would vote on people based on their virtue, on their larger than life statesmanship which was not partisan."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So there's a lot of talk these days about the polarization of the media or the polarization of politics in general. How much of it do you think is due to things like social media or do you think it was inevitable? Well we've always had polarization in American politics, but there was a dose of something else which was a call to a higher American ideal. And also voters would vote on people based on their virtue, on their larger than life statesmanship which was not partisan. So you had to keep a balance. If you were being highly partisan, you kind of did it in quiet. What's changed now with social media and also with the flood of money in politics is that it has encouraged people to be more and more partisan."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And also voters would vote on people based on their virtue, on their larger than life statesmanship which was not partisan. So you had to keep a balance. If you were being highly partisan, you kind of did it in quiet. What's changed now with social media and also with the flood of money in politics is that it has encouraged people to be more and more partisan. The louder and hotter I talk on a specific issue, the more money I'm going to be able to raise, the more interest groups are going to like me, and the more clicks I'm going to get because I'm the one making the most flamboyant noise. The problem is that means the arguments are always containing flamboyant noise. And the people who want a calm, steady, measured conversation, well they're not getting read on social media."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What's changed now with social media and also with the flood of money in politics is that it has encouraged people to be more and more partisan. The louder and hotter I talk on a specific issue, the more money I'm going to be able to raise, the more interest groups are going to like me, and the more clicks I'm going to get because I'm the one making the most flamboyant noise. The problem is that means the arguments are always containing flamboyant noise. And the people who want a calm, steady, measured conversation, well they're not getting read on social media. They're not in charge of the interest groups that pay millions and millions of dollars. So the system encourages people to stay apart. And that's one of the biggest challenges."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the people who want a calm, steady, measured conversation, well they're not getting read on social media. They're not in charge of the interest groups that pay millions and millions of dollars. So the system encourages people to stay apart. And that's one of the biggest challenges. Secretary of Defense James Mattis says it may be the greatest threat to American democracy, that polarization. And do you see a way of this getting resolved? Or does it get worse?"}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's one of the biggest challenges. Secretary of Defense James Mattis says it may be the greatest threat to American democracy, that polarization. And do you see a way of this getting resolved? Or does it get worse? Does it get better? There have been periods of American history where we have been the split. Obviously the Civil War was a period of great rending in the American fabric."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or does it get worse? Does it get better? There have been periods of American history where we have been the split. Obviously the Civil War was a period of great rending in the American fabric. What changed it was an actual conflict. And so that, God forbid, would be one way to do it. Another would be if there was a threat to America from outside its borders and people would feel an acute sense of national pride and patriotism."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Obviously the Civil War was a period of great rending in the American fabric. What changed it was an actual conflict. And so that, God forbid, would be one way to do it. Another would be if there was a threat to America from outside its borders and people would feel an acute sense of national pride and patriotism. But other than that, there doesn't appear to be at the moment a quick fix for what is a complicated problem for why the two parties have gotten into a kind of inescapable fight that they can't seem to get themselves out of. It's like we need a shock to remind ourselves how much commonality there is so all of the polarizing quibbling kind of goes away or at least gets covered up a little bit. Big changes in American history usually happen from a shock and it's what breaks people out of their behavior and also which tells a lot of the people in the rest of the country who don't participate in presidential elections and don't participate in congressional elections."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Another would be if there was a threat to America from outside its borders and people would feel an acute sense of national pride and patriotism. But other than that, there doesn't appear to be at the moment a quick fix for what is a complicated problem for why the two parties have gotten into a kind of inescapable fight that they can't seem to get themselves out of. It's like we need a shock to remind ourselves how much commonality there is so all of the polarizing quibbling kind of goes away or at least gets covered up a little bit. Big changes in American history usually happen from a shock and it's what breaks people out of their behavior and also which tells a lot of the people in the rest of the country who don't participate in presidential elections and don't participate in congressional elections. It reminds them that something real is at stake. And there is a vast group of Americans who really want solutions in the middle, who don't care about the bickering and the ideology. But a lot of them don't participate in politics."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now what do I mean by congressional roles? Well, whether someone is a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate or even one of the state legislatures, there's different ways that they can act on behalf of the people that they are representing. One way is to just be a delegate. And that's to say, okay, what would my people that I'm trying to represent want me to do? And then to do exactly that. The other role is to be a trustee. And this is the idea of, well, there's some issues where either the people in my district don't have an opinion, or maybe if they superficially looked at it, they would want to vote one way, but I, as a representative, as a trustee, I can dig a little bit deeper into the nuances and realize what's actually better for the people that I represent or for a country as a whole."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's to say, okay, what would my people that I'm trying to represent want me to do? And then to do exactly that. The other role is to be a trustee. And this is the idea of, well, there's some issues where either the people in my district don't have an opinion, or maybe if they superficially looked at it, they would want to vote one way, but I, as a representative, as a trustee, I can dig a little bit deeper into the nuances and realize what's actually better for the people that I represent or for a country as a whole. So one way to think about it, a delegate would get a sense of the people that they're representing, what they would want, and just do that, while a trustee would say, okay, what do I believe is best either for the people that I'm representing or for the country as a whole? And sometimes they obviously could coincide. And the third type of role is politico."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is the idea of, well, there's some issues where either the people in my district don't have an opinion, or maybe if they superficially looked at it, they would want to vote one way, but I, as a representative, as a trustee, I can dig a little bit deeper into the nuances and realize what's actually better for the people that I represent or for a country as a whole. So one way to think about it, a delegate would get a sense of the people that they're representing, what they would want, and just do that, while a trustee would say, okay, what do I believe is best either for the people that I'm representing or for the country as a whole? And sometimes they obviously could coincide. And the third type of role is politico. Now, the everyday definition for politico is a politician. And sometimes it's used in the not-so-favorable sense. But in the context of, especially in a government class, a politico is a representative who does a little bit of both, depending on the situation."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the third type of role is politico. Now, the everyday definition for politico is a politician. And sometimes it's used in the not-so-favorable sense. But in the context of, especially in a government class, a politico is a representative who does a little bit of both, depending on the situation. If there's something that the people that they represent care a lot about, something that the constituents care a lot about, well, there they would say, okay, you know what? I'm just gonna vote the way they want me to vote, even if I don't necessarily agree with it because it matters to them a lot, so there I'm gonna be a delegate. But on the things that really matter to me or that don't matter so much to my constituents, well, there I'm going to be a trustee."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But in the context of, especially in a government class, a politico is a representative who does a little bit of both, depending on the situation. If there's something that the people that they represent care a lot about, something that the constituents care a lot about, well, there they would say, okay, you know what? I'm just gonna vote the way they want me to vote, even if I don't necessarily agree with it because it matters to them a lot, so there I'm gonna be a delegate. But on the things that really matter to me or that don't matter so much to my constituents, well, there I'm going to be a trustee. So you could view a politico as a bit of a hybrid. So with that out of the way, let's look at some scenarios and think about whether these are describing a representative as a delegate, a trustee, or a politico. So let's start with this first one."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But on the things that really matter to me or that don't matter so much to my constituents, well, there I'm going to be a trustee. So you could view a politico as a bit of a hybrid. So with that out of the way, let's look at some scenarios and think about whether these are describing a representative as a delegate, a trustee, or a politico. So let's start with this first one. It says, there is a vote on a bill in the House of Representatives that would increase environmental regulations on major businesses. Several citizens in Illinois' 9th Congressional District have contacted their representative to influence them to vote in favor of the bill. However, Representative Whalen thinks that these regulations will cost businesses too much money, which will lead businesses to firing his constituents, so he decides to vote against it."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's start with this first one. It says, there is a vote on a bill in the House of Representatives that would increase environmental regulations on major businesses. Several citizens in Illinois' 9th Congressional District have contacted their representative to influence them to vote in favor of the bill. However, Representative Whalen thinks that these regulations will cost businesses too much money, which will lead businesses to firing his constituents, so he decides to vote against it. So pause this video. And so is Representative Whalen, or Wallen, acting as a delegate, a trustee, or a politico? So the key clues here are that Representative Whalen, or Wallen, decides to vote against the bill despite the fact that some of his constituents have contacted him to vote in favor of the bill."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "However, Representative Whalen thinks that these regulations will cost businesses too much money, which will lead businesses to firing his constituents, so he decides to vote against it. So pause this video. And so is Representative Whalen, or Wallen, acting as a delegate, a trustee, or a politico? So the key clues here are that Representative Whalen, or Wallen, decides to vote against the bill despite the fact that some of his constituents have contacted him to vote in favor of the bill. And so here, he is clearly acting based on his own beliefs. So he is acting as a trustee. He's doing what he thinks is best for his constituents, even though they might not agree with it."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the key clues here are that Representative Whalen, or Wallen, decides to vote against the bill despite the fact that some of his constituents have contacted him to vote in favor of the bill. And so here, he is clearly acting based on his own beliefs. So he is acting as a trustee. He's doing what he thinks is best for his constituents, even though they might not agree with it. Let's look at another scenario. In the Senate, there is a vote on a bill that would eliminate the penny. Citizens in Indiana reach out to their senator to encourage her to support the bill."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's doing what he thinks is best for his constituents, even though they might not agree with it. Let's look at another scenario. In the Senate, there is a vote on a bill that would eliminate the penny. Citizens in Indiana reach out to their senator to encourage her to support the bill. Even though Senator Portela thinks the penny is incredibly useful, she decides to vote for the bill. So pause this video and think about how is Senator Portela acting as a delegate, trustee, or politico? Well, it's pretty clear that she's doing exactly what her constituents want her to do."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Citizens in Indiana reach out to their senator to encourage her to support the bill. Even though Senator Portela thinks the penny is incredibly useful, she decides to vote for the bill. So pause this video and think about how is Senator Portela acting as a delegate, trustee, or politico? Well, it's pretty clear that she's doing exactly what her constituents want her to do. The constituents are encouraging her to support the bill, and she votes the bill. And she's doing this despite what she thinks is the better option. Even though she likes the penny, she's going to vote to eliminate the penny because that's what her constituents want."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, it's pretty clear that she's doing exactly what her constituents want her to do. The constituents are encouraging her to support the bill, and she votes the bill. And she's doing this despite what she thinks is the better option. Even though she likes the penny, she's going to vote to eliminate the penny because that's what her constituents want. So she is clearly acting as a delegate. And to be clear, and this is often the case, many times a representative will agree with their constituents, and then in that situation, they're acting as both a delegate and a trustee. Now let's look at one more scenario."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Even though she likes the penny, she's going to vote to eliminate the penny because that's what her constituents want. So she is clearly acting as a delegate. And to be clear, and this is often the case, many times a representative will agree with their constituents, and then in that situation, they're acting as both a delegate and a trustee. Now let's look at one more scenario. There are two major bills up for a vote in the Indiana State Senate. One bill will change the name of a high school in Indianapolis to Larry Bird High School. The other bill would set aside 100 acres for a new state park."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now let's look at one more scenario. There are two major bills up for a vote in the Indiana State Senate. One bill will change the name of a high school in Indianapolis to Larry Bird High School. The other bill would set aside 100 acres for a new state park. Senator Kamath has received about 1,200 calls from her constituents asking her to support the bill to rename the high school, but no calls about the park bill. Senator Kamath is incredibly passionate about parks, but has not decided her vote on the renaming of the high school. Senator Kamath decides to vote in favor of the park bill, using her better judgment to decide her vote, and in favor of changing the name of the high school to represent her constituents' interests."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The other bill would set aside 100 acres for a new state park. Senator Kamath has received about 1,200 calls from her constituents asking her to support the bill to rename the high school, but no calls about the park bill. Senator Kamath is incredibly passionate about parks, but has not decided her vote on the renaming of the high school. Senator Kamath decides to vote in favor of the park bill, using her better judgment to decide her vote, and in favor of changing the name of the high school to represent her constituents' interests. So you, once again, should pause this video and figure out is Senator Kamath acting as a delegate, trustee, or politico? Well, you can see on the park bill, which she supports, so she votes in favor of the park bill, she does that because that's just what she thinks is better. She's using her better judgment."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Senator Kamath decides to vote in favor of the park bill, using her better judgment to decide her vote, and in favor of changing the name of the high school to represent her constituents' interests. So you, once again, should pause this video and figure out is Senator Kamath acting as a delegate, trustee, or politico? Well, you can see on the park bill, which she supports, so she votes in favor of the park bill, she does that because that's just what she thinks is better. She's using her better judgment. So in that scenario, she is acting as a trustee. She's doing what she thinks is right. And then on the naming the high school, Larry Bird High School, there she just says, hey, you know what, I don't have a strong opinion of it."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "She's using her better judgment. So in that scenario, she is acting as a trustee. She's doing what she thinks is right. And then on the naming the high school, Larry Bird High School, there she just says, hey, you know what, I don't have a strong opinion of it. I am just going to represent my constituents' interests. And so there, she's clearly acting as a delegate. And so the scenario where sometimes you act as a delegate, sometimes you act as a trustee, this is sometimes categorized, or often categorized, and especially in a government class, as a politico, which, as I mentioned before, is really just a term often used for a politician."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then on the naming the high school, Larry Bird High School, there she just says, hey, you know what, I don't have a strong opinion of it. I am just going to represent my constituents' interests. And so there, she's clearly acting as a delegate. And so the scenario where sometimes you act as a delegate, sometimes you act as a trustee, this is sometimes categorized, or often categorized, and especially in a government class, as a politico, which, as I mentioned before, is really just a term often used for a politician. And you can imagine, it's very natural for a politician to sometimes act as a delegate. Hey, I've gotta make my constituents happy. Let me do exactly what they want me to do."}, {"video_title": "Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the scenario where sometimes you act as a delegate, sometimes you act as a trustee, this is sometimes categorized, or often categorized, and especially in a government class, as a politico, which, as I mentioned before, is really just a term often used for a politician. And you can imagine, it's very natural for a politician to sometimes act as a delegate. Hey, I've gotta make my constituents happy. Let me do exactly what they want me to do. But every now and then, my constituents either might not care about an issue, or they might not realize all of the details, or all of the implications, and so I might do something that's maybe not exactly what they want. And in those scenarios, well, then I'm just gonna, I'm just gonna vote my conscience. And if I do a little bit of both on different types of issues, well, then I'm acting as a politico."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3", "Sentence": "You can see it's being presided over by George Washington. And it starts, the preamble says, we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. So once again, pause this video and think about whether you see ideas of popular sovereignty, limited government, social contract, natural rights, going on even in this preamble or even from the fact that they took the trouble to create this Constitution. Well, let's start at the beginning. So it starts with we the people. We the people are the ones that are creating this Constitution. And not only does it start with we the people, but we the people is intentionally written in this very, very large writing right over here."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, let's start at the beginning. So it starts with we the people. We the people are the ones that are creating this Constitution. And not only does it start with we the people, but we the people is intentionally written in this very, very large writing right over here. This is a picture of the Constitution. So it's really all about we the people. The people are sovereign."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3", "Sentence": "And not only does it start with we the people, but we the people is intentionally written in this very, very large writing right over here. This is a picture of the Constitution. So it's really all about we the people. The people are sovereign. So this idea of popular sovereignty comes out loud and clear in not just the Declaration of Independence, but also the US Constitution. And the fact that we the people are setting up this government, this is all about social contract. They are forming a government."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3", "Sentence": "The people are sovereign. So this idea of popular sovereignty comes out loud and clear in not just the Declaration of Independence, but also the US Constitution. And the fact that we the people are setting up this government, this is all about social contract. They are forming a government. They're forming a social contract with a government that is going to protect, that is going to establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. So let me make this clear. That is this."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3", "Sentence": "They are forming a government. They're forming a social contract with a government that is going to protect, that is going to establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. So let me make this clear. That is this. This is all social contract. This is what we expect this government that we're creating to do, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Now, what about things like limited government?"}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3", "Sentence": "That is this. This is all social contract. This is what we expect this government that we're creating to do, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Now, what about things like limited government? Well, just the very fact that we have a Constitution is a sign of limited government, that it isn't just a pure democracy, that whoever is governing is going to be constrained. There, the rights of the government are going to be described by this Constitution. We also talk about the blessings of liberty."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, what about things like limited government? Well, just the very fact that we have a Constitution is a sign of limited government, that it isn't just a pure democracy, that whoever is governing is going to be constrained. There, the rights of the government are going to be described by this Constitution. We also talk about the blessings of liberty. So this is another reference to natural rights. The Declaration of Independence is a little bit more clear about natural rights or a little bit more explicit, but the blessings of liberty does talk about, or that's maybe in reference to natural rights. And so I will leave you there."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And my goal here is to not take any political sides and hopefully give an overview of what all of the debate is about and what this Affordable Care Act is all about. And I'm gonna start with the most controversial part, and this is the individual mandate. And this is the idea that you either have to get insurance or pay a penalty or a fee or a tax. Penalty, which is now being referred to as a tax by many folks. And the idea here, insurance, the idea here is that there are obviously many folks who are uninsured right now, and when they get sick, especially when they get very sick, they still get healthcare. And in particular, they will go to the emergency room. They will go to the emergency room, and that is quite possibly the most expensive part of the healthcare system to interface with."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Penalty, which is now being referred to as a tax by many folks. And the idea here, insurance, the idea here is that there are obviously many folks who are uninsured right now, and when they get sick, especially when they get very sick, they still get healthcare. And in particular, they will go to the emergency room. They will go to the emergency room, and that is quite possibly the most expensive part of the healthcare system to interface with. So there's kind of a moral argument here, is that one, these people are getting sicker than they need to get. If they had insurance, then they would get preventative care and not get that sick. And then there's a financial, or I guess you could say a fairness argument, that these people are getting sick, going to the emergency room."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They will go to the emergency room, and that is quite possibly the most expensive part of the healthcare system to interface with. So there's kind of a moral argument here, is that one, these people are getting sicker than they need to get. If they had insurance, then they would get preventative care and not get that sick. And then there's a financial, or I guess you could say a fairness argument, that these people are getting sick, going to the emergency room. They have to be given care at that emergency room. The hospitals bear those costs, and then eventually the hospitals recoup those costs by charging more for all sorts of other services, which eventually go back to the people who are paying for insurance, who actually are paying for the healthcare. And so if you have an individual mandate, it'll clear things up a little bit."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then there's a financial, or I guess you could say a fairness argument, that these people are getting sick, going to the emergency room. They have to be given care at that emergency room. The hospitals bear those costs, and then eventually the hospitals recoup those costs by charging more for all sorts of other services, which eventually go back to the people who are paying for insurance, who actually are paying for the healthcare. And so if you have an individual mandate, it'll clear things up a little bit. People will have to essentially pay for the healthcare that they are already getting. Now, the argument against the individual mandate is that this is the government putting into law saying that people have to buy something, in particular that they have to buy health insurance. Now, the counter argument to that that many people make is, well, there's something similar going on with car insurance."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so if you have an individual mandate, it'll clear things up a little bit. People will have to essentially pay for the healthcare that they are already getting. Now, the argument against the individual mandate is that this is the government putting into law saying that people have to buy something, in particular that they have to buy health insurance. Now, the counter argument to that that many people make is, well, there's something similar going on with car insurance. If you wanna drive in most states, you have to buy some type of car insurance, or at least show that you have the financial ability to pay any liabilities that you might have if you get into an accident. Now, the counter, counter, counter argument to that is, well, car insurance is not a, is something that someone, or driving is something that someone chooses to do, that you don't have to drive. While in the case of health insurance, this is something that this is every human being in the, in the, in the, in the country is being forced to get."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, the counter argument to that that many people make is, well, there's something similar going on with car insurance. If you wanna drive in most states, you have to buy some type of car insurance, or at least show that you have the financial ability to pay any liabilities that you might have if you get into an accident. Now, the counter, counter, counter argument to that is, well, car insurance is not a, is something that someone, or driving is something that someone chooses to do, that you don't have to drive. While in the case of health insurance, this is something that this is every human being in the, in the, in the, in the country is being forced to get. I'll leave it to you to decide where you sit on that and what, what balances what other issue. Now, obviously, if you're going to decide whether you want insurance, or whether you're going to pay a penalty or a tax, you have to figure out how high is that penalty or tax going to be on you, or if you wanna figure out if this is a fair situation, you have to think about how high is that penalty or tax going to be. And the current provisions say that by 2016, and this is when the full penalties take effect, you're going to have to pay the maximum of either 2.5% of income, of income, or $695 for an individual, and $2,085 for a family."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "While in the case of health insurance, this is something that this is every human being in the, in the, in the, in the country is being forced to get. I'll leave it to you to decide where you sit on that and what, what balances what other issue. Now, obviously, if you're going to decide whether you want insurance, or whether you're going to pay a penalty or a tax, you have to figure out how high is that penalty or tax going to be on you, or if you wanna figure out if this is a fair situation, you have to think about how high is that penalty or tax going to be. And the current provisions say that by 2016, and this is when the full penalties take effect, you're going to have to pay the maximum of either 2.5% of income, of income, or $695 for an individual, and $2,085 for a family. And there are exceptions. This will not, this whole individual mandate won't apply to you if it, have getting insurance would cost you more than 8% of your total income, or if you belong to a religion that does not participate in the healthcare system, then it doesn't apply. And also, you will never have to pay more than 8% of what it would cost for you to get a health insurance policy."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the current provisions say that by 2016, and this is when the full penalties take effect, you're going to have to pay the maximum of either 2.5% of income, of income, or $695 for an individual, and $2,085 for a family. And there are exceptions. This will not, this whole individual mandate won't apply to you if it, have getting insurance would cost you more than 8% of your total income, or if you belong to a religion that does not participate in the healthcare system, then it doesn't apply. And also, you will never have to pay more than 8% of what it would cost for you to get a health insurance policy. But these are the general policy, the general penalties. And just to get an understanding of it, if you made $100,000 and chose not to get the insurance, you'll, the 2.5% is $2,500, which is more than either of these numbers, and so you will pay $2,500. If you, if your household makes $50,000, then the 2.5% would be less than this here, and so you would pay, you would pay this number right over there."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And also, you will never have to pay more than 8% of what it would cost for you to get a health insurance policy. But these are the general policy, the general penalties. And just to get an understanding of it, if you made $100,000 and chose not to get the insurance, you'll, the 2.5% is $2,500, which is more than either of these numbers, and so you will pay $2,500. If you, if your household makes $50,000, then the 2.5% would be less than this here, and so you would pay, you would pay this number right over there. Now, the other provisions of the Affordable Care Act really are all around, well, if we want people to get insurance, we need to make it easier for them to get insurance. And the biggest deal, at least in my mind, is this one covering preexisting, preexisting conditions. Right now, if you have a preexisting condition, you have a severe form of cancer or something else, and you don't have insurance, and your employer does not cover it, or maybe you're unemployed, and you try to get insurance on your own, you're likely to either be denied, or if you are offered insurance, it will be ridiculously expensive."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you, if your household makes $50,000, then the 2.5% would be less than this here, and so you would pay, you would pay this number right over there. Now, the other provisions of the Affordable Care Act really are all around, well, if we want people to get insurance, we need to make it easier for them to get insurance. And the biggest deal, at least in my mind, is this one covering preexisting, preexisting conditions. Right now, if you have a preexisting condition, you have a severe form of cancer or something else, and you don't have insurance, and your employer does not cover it, or maybe you're unemployed, and you try to get insurance on your own, you're likely to either be denied, or if you are offered insurance, it will be ridiculously expensive. And that's because the insurance company knows that they're going to take a huge loss on paying all of your medical expenses. The Affordable Care Act says you can no longer base the premiums or whether or not you're going to give someone coverage based on preexisting conditions. People will be given charged premiums, which is essentially how much you pay for a policy, based on age and geography."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Right now, if you have a preexisting condition, you have a severe form of cancer or something else, and you don't have insurance, and your employer does not cover it, or maybe you're unemployed, and you try to get insurance on your own, you're likely to either be denied, or if you are offered insurance, it will be ridiculously expensive. And that's because the insurance company knows that they're going to take a huge loss on paying all of your medical expenses. The Affordable Care Act says you can no longer base the premiums or whether or not you're going to give someone coverage based on preexisting conditions. People will be given charged premiums, which is essentially how much you pay for a policy, based on age and geography. So if you have two 40-year-olds, one of whom has the misfortune of having cancer, and the other who does not have any preexisting condition, and they both live in, let's say, in Virginia, under this, they would pay the exact amount of insurance, or they would pay the exact insurance premium. These other two points, once again, just make it easier to get insurance. Right now, if you've ever tried to get insurance, you'll see that it's hard to compare and contrast policies, really understand what you're getting and what you're not getting."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "People will be given charged premiums, which is essentially how much you pay for a policy, based on age and geography. So if you have two 40-year-olds, one of whom has the misfortune of having cancer, and the other who does not have any preexisting condition, and they both live in, let's say, in Virginia, under this, they would pay the exact amount of insurance, or they would pay the exact insurance premium. These other two points, once again, just make it easier to get insurance. Right now, if you've ever tried to get insurance, you'll see that it's hard to compare and contrast policies, really understand what you're getting and what you're not getting. And so this part of the Act says that every state will set up these insurance exchanges, which allow a little bit more transparency in terms of buying and selling policies. And then this final part right over here, and this is just an overview, I'm not covering everything, not all of the details, is the idea that, well, the government will also subsidize people getting policies, especially if they are in lower income, if they're in kind of a more difficult financial situation. Now, on top of this, if you're deciding whether or not you support things, if you say, oh, this might be a good idea, or maybe you think it's a bad idea because you don't like the government forcing things like this, there's also the issue of the cost."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Right now, if you've ever tried to get insurance, you'll see that it's hard to compare and contrast policies, really understand what you're getting and what you're not getting. And so this part of the Act says that every state will set up these insurance exchanges, which allow a little bit more transparency in terms of buying and selling policies. And then this final part right over here, and this is just an overview, I'm not covering everything, not all of the details, is the idea that, well, the government will also subsidize people getting policies, especially if they are in lower income, if they're in kind of a more difficult financial situation. Now, on top of this, if you're deciding whether or not you support things, if you say, oh, this might be a good idea, or maybe you think it's a bad idea because you don't like the government forcing things like this, there's also the issue of the cost. And this whole thing, even though there might be savings in terms of lower medical care because people will get preventative health care and things like that, there is still a net cost to this. And this is going to be primarily paid for by increasing the amount, the essential Medicare tax for high net, for people with larger incomes. So it's really going to be larger Medicare revenues, Medicare revenues or Medicare taxes on people with larger incomes, larger incomes."}, {"video_title": "PPACA or  Obamacare    American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, on top of this, if you're deciding whether or not you support things, if you say, oh, this might be a good idea, or maybe you think it's a bad idea because you don't like the government forcing things like this, there's also the issue of the cost. And this whole thing, even though there might be savings in terms of lower medical care because people will get preventative health care and things like that, there is still a net cost to this. And this is going to be primarily paid for by increasing the amount, the essential Medicare tax for high net, for people with larger incomes. So it's really going to be larger Medicare revenues, Medicare revenues or Medicare taxes on people with larger incomes, larger incomes. And this is estimated to generate about 200 billion a year, 210, whatever, there are different estimates here. But that's gonna bear most of the cost. And on top of that, there are some extra fees on insurers, and there's what's called an excise tax, which is a tax that tends to be a large tax on a specific product on what they call Cadillac policies, these policies that are very, very, very generous to kind of make up some of the cost of all of this."}, {"video_title": "Challenges of naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Immigrant residents seeking naturalization face barriers throughout the process, and it's only become more difficult over time. Immigrants face strict requirements to become lawful permanent residents, and when they try to become U.S. citizens, they face increased filing costs and long processing times for their applications. Certain groups of immigrants get priority when they apply for lawful permanent resident status. As the Pew Research Center reported, in 2015, 44% of green cards went to immigrants who were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and 20% went to immigrants who were extended family members of citizens and lawful permanent residents. Having special skills, like being a talented doctor or doing innovative research, or special talents, like being a gifted athlete, means you're in the most prioritized group for employment-based preferences for lawful permanent residents. If you don't have special skills or talents, you can still be eligible for employment-based residency, but you have to have an employer willing to complete all the necessary paperwork with the federal government. As that is an added cost, some employers refuse to hire people from outside the United States."}, {"video_title": "Challenges of naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "As the Pew Research Center reported, in 2015, 44% of green cards went to immigrants who were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and 20% went to immigrants who were extended family members of citizens and lawful permanent residents. Having special skills, like being a talented doctor or doing innovative research, or special talents, like being a gifted athlete, means you're in the most prioritized group for employment-based preferences for lawful permanent residents. If you don't have special skills or talents, you can still be eligible for employment-based residency, but you have to have an employer willing to complete all the necessary paperwork with the federal government. As that is an added cost, some employers refuse to hire people from outside the United States. So if you don't have any specialized skills, a job offer, an employer willing to file paperwork for labor certification, a parent with lawful permanent resident or citizenship status, it's difficult to get lawful permanent status. The challenges continue throughout the naturalization process. It takes years for lawful permanent residents to become American citizens."}, {"video_title": "Challenges of naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "As that is an added cost, some employers refuse to hire people from outside the United States. So if you don't have any specialized skills, a job offer, an employer willing to file paperwork for labor certification, a parent with lawful permanent resident or citizenship status, it's difficult to get lawful permanent status. The challenges continue throughout the naturalization process. It takes years for lawful permanent residents to become American citizens. Remember that even to apply for naturalization, lawful permanent residents have to have lived in the United States for at least five years, but the process can take much longer than that. The median time it takes for lawful permanent residents to become citizens is actually eight years. Part of the reason that it takes so long is because of how long it takes to process a naturalization application."}, {"video_title": "Challenges of naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It takes years for lawful permanent residents to become American citizens. Remember that even to apply for naturalization, lawful permanent residents have to have lived in the United States for at least five years, but the process can take much longer than that. The median time it takes for lawful permanent residents to become citizens is actually eight years. Part of the reason that it takes so long is because of how long it takes to process a naturalization application. The federal government has experienced a significant backlog of applications waiting for processing, and the average time to process a citizenship application has doubled since 2012. This is due to a surge in applications and stricter scrutiny on those applications. And the costs associated with filing a naturalization application have also increased significantly."}, {"video_title": "Challenges of naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Part of the reason that it takes so long is because of how long it takes to process a naturalization application. The federal government has experienced a significant backlog of applications waiting for processing, and the average time to process a citizenship application has doubled since 2012. This is due to a surge in applications and stricter scrutiny on those applications. And the costs associated with filing a naturalization application have also increased significantly. Let's take a look at this chart. In 1985, it only cost $35 for a person to file an application. Now it costs over $1,000 to file."}, {"video_title": "Challenges of naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the costs associated with filing a naturalization application have also increased significantly. Let's take a look at this chart. In 1985, it only cost $35 for a person to file an application. Now it costs over $1,000 to file. Why does it cost so much more? USCIS argues that the increased fees are necessary to offset the growing cost of processing applications and deterring fraud. And this graph doesn't cover all of the costs an immigrant might incur during the naturalization process, since it doesn't include any of the costs associated with getting a lawyer to advise them or any classes that they might need to take in order to learn English or U.S. civics."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. We've become familiar with the Miranda warnings given to suspects in police custody through movies and TV shows. But who was Miranda? And what do these warnings really mean? This is Kim from Khan Academy, and today we're digging into the 1966 Supreme Court case, Miranda versus Arizona. To learn more about the case, I spoke with two experts. Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, who's written extensively about the Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what do these warnings really mean? This is Kim from Khan Academy, and today we're digging into the 1966 Supreme Court case, Miranda versus Arizona. To learn more about the case, I spoke with two experts. Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, who's written extensively about the Supreme Court. Paul Cassell is the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Utah School of Law. He's a leading researcher on criminal procedure and crime victims' rights. So Jeff, if we actually go back to the time of this case, what was going on at this time in constitutional law?"}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, who's written extensively about the Supreme Court. Paul Cassell is the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Utah School of Law. He's a leading researcher on criminal procedure and crime victims' rights. So Jeff, if we actually go back to the time of this case, what was going on at this time in constitutional law? Why was the Miranda case so important? The Miranda case was hugely important because it represented the high watermark of the Warren Court's criminal procedure revolution. The 1960s were a time when there was a lot of concern about the third degree."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So Jeff, if we actually go back to the time of this case, what was going on at this time in constitutional law? Why was the Miranda case so important? The Miranda case was hugely important because it represented the high watermark of the Warren Court's criminal procedure revolution. The 1960s were a time when there was a lot of concern about the third degree. Southern states were interrogating African-American defendants in ways that struck many people as unfair. But the Supreme Court took a long time to respond. Historically, the admissibility of confessions into a trial had been determined by what is called the voluntariness test."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The 1960s were a time when there was a lot of concern about the third degree. Southern states were interrogating African-American defendants in ways that struck many people as unfair. But the Supreme Court took a long time to respond. Historically, the admissibility of confessions into a trial had been determined by what is called the voluntariness test. And that required a judge to decide, was the confession voluntarily given or had the police used unfair or overly aggressive tactics to extract it? But making those kinds of determinations had proven challenging for some courts. And so there was interest in coming up with, I guess what you might call a bright line rule, a single test for determining whether confessions were or were not voluntary."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Historically, the admissibility of confessions into a trial had been determined by what is called the voluntariness test. And that required a judge to decide, was the confession voluntarily given or had the police used unfair or overly aggressive tactics to extract it? But making those kinds of determinations had proven challenging for some courts. And so there was interest in coming up with, I guess what you might call a bright line rule, a single test for determining whether confessions were or were not voluntary. The court didn't really settle on a standard for deciding whether or not a confession was voluntary or not. A test emerged, and it was called the totality of the circumstances test, which basically gave judges a lot of discretion to weigh different factors. Was the defendant well-educated?"}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so there was interest in coming up with, I guess what you might call a bright line rule, a single test for determining whether confessions were or were not voluntary. The court didn't really settle on a standard for deciding whether or not a confession was voluntary or not. A test emerged, and it was called the totality of the circumstances test, which basically gave judges a lot of discretion to weigh different factors. Was the defendant well-educated? What was his physical health? His emotional characteristics? But lots of people were uncomfortable with the amorphousness of this test."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Was the defendant well-educated? What was his physical health? His emotional characteristics? But lots of people were uncomfortable with the amorphousness of this test. And at a time when there's renewed concern in the 1960s about the unfairness of the third degree, there's pressure to come up with a crisper and more constitutionally-rooted way of ensuring that confessions are not only involuntary in the sense of not being beaten out of a suspect, but not involuntary in the sense of not reflecting the subtle, coercive pressures of the confession room. So Miranda was arrested on suspicion of rape. And at the time, the law on confessions was somewhat in flux."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But lots of people were uncomfortable with the amorphousness of this test. And at a time when there's renewed concern in the 1960s about the unfairness of the third degree, there's pressure to come up with a crisper and more constitutionally-rooted way of ensuring that confessions are not only involuntary in the sense of not being beaten out of a suspect, but not involuntary in the sense of not reflecting the subtle, coercive pressures of the confession room. So Miranda was arrested on suspicion of rape. And at the time, the law on confessions was somewhat in flux. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and then ultimately appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to review his case and determine the issue. So who was Ernesto Miranda? What was his background?"}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And at the time, the law on confessions was somewhat in flux. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and then ultimately appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to review his case and determine the issue. So who was Ernesto Miranda? What was his background? Ernesto Miranda was a 23-year-old Hispanic man. He was accused of raping a woman called Patricia. That was the pseudonym for her real name."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What was his background? Ernesto Miranda was a 23-year-old Hispanic man. He was accused of raping a woman called Patricia. That was the pseudonym for her real name. She was basically forced into a car after getting off of a bus and assaulted in this terrible way. Miranda was a laborer. He was poorly educated, I think it's fair to say."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That was the pseudonym for her real name. She was basically forced into a car after getting off of a bus and assaulted in this terrible way. Miranda was a laborer. He was poorly educated, I think it's fair to say. And I think it's also important to remember that he was a rapist. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that he, in fact, had sexually assaulted a young 18-year-old girl as she was walking home from work late one night. He grabbed her off the street, threw her into the back of his car, and drove her out into the desert and raped her."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He was poorly educated, I think it's fair to say. And I think it's also important to remember that he was a rapist. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that he, in fact, had sexually assaulted a young 18-year-old girl as she was walking home from work late one night. He grabbed her off the street, threw her into the back of his car, and drove her out into the desert and raped her. And so those are all things that I think are important to recall when we talk about the Miranda decision. And he was identified after a friend of hers saw a car similar to the one that she described a week later, and the police tracked the registration down to Miranda's girlfriend, who identified him. So the police got the report of the crime from the victim, and they also had a report of an unusual car that was involved."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He grabbed her off the street, threw her into the back of his car, and drove her out into the desert and raped her. And so those are all things that I think are important to recall when we talk about the Miranda decision. And he was identified after a friend of hers saw a car similar to the one that she described a week later, and the police tracked the registration down to Miranda's girlfriend, who identified him. So the police got the report of the crime from the victim, and they also had a report of an unusual car that was involved. And so eventually, they were able to identify a car that was similar to that described by the victim that came back as registered to Miranda. And so they picked him up for questioning. They took him into the station house."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the police got the report of the crime from the victim, and they also had a report of an unusual car that was involved. And so eventually, they were able to identify a car that was similar to that described by the victim that came back as registered to Miranda. And so they picked him up for questioning. They took him into the station house. He denied having any involvement. But then the police pulled the ploy. They had the victim come and look at Miranda, along with a couple of other people in a lineup, a group of similarly appearing people."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They took him into the station house. He denied having any involvement. But then the police pulled the ploy. They had the victim come and look at Miranda, along with a couple of other people in a lineup, a group of similarly appearing people. And the victim thought that maybe Miranda was the person who had committed the crime, but she wasn't sure. So the police went back to Miranda, and they said, well, she's identified you. And Miranda at that point said, well, I guess I better tell you what happened then."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They had the victim come and look at Miranda, along with a couple of other people in a lineup, a group of similarly appearing people. And the victim thought that maybe Miranda was the person who had committed the crime, but she wasn't sure. So the police went back to Miranda, and they said, well, she's identified you. And Miranda at that point said, well, I guess I better tell you what happened then. And he made a confession to the rape, as well as to some other crimes as well. The question was whether this confession was consistent with the Fifth Amendment. He might or might not have met the totality of the circumstances test, as Justice Harlan noted in his dissent."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Miranda at that point said, well, I guess I better tell you what happened then. And he made a confession to the rape, as well as to some other crimes as well. The question was whether this confession was consistent with the Fifth Amendment. He might or might not have met the totality of the circumstances test, as Justice Harlan noted in his dissent. Miranda was 23 years old, indigent, educated to the extent of completing half the ninth grade, had an emotional illness of the schizophrenic type. And the question was whether he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of these rights. But the Supreme Court decided not to stick to that old totality of the circumstances test and rethink the entire way that confessions should be evaluated."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He might or might not have met the totality of the circumstances test, as Justice Harlan noted in his dissent. Miranda was 23 years old, indigent, educated to the extent of completing half the ninth grade, had an emotional illness of the schizophrenic type. And the question was whether he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of these rights. But the Supreme Court decided not to stick to that old totality of the circumstances test and rethink the entire way that confessions should be evaluated. So the Supreme Court was kind of looking for an example case to try to figure out what this line should be about confessions and how the police should treat suspects. Why did they choose this case in particular? The court chose the Miranda case because it came up at the right time, at a time when all of the judges were increasingly impatient with this totality of the circumstances test, including the great liberal textualist Hugo Black, who had been a opponent of the voluntariness test because he just thought it was too subjective."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the Supreme Court decided not to stick to that old totality of the circumstances test and rethink the entire way that confessions should be evaluated. So the Supreme Court was kind of looking for an example case to try to figure out what this line should be about confessions and how the police should treat suspects. Why did they choose this case in particular? The court chose the Miranda case because it came up at the right time, at a time when all of the judges were increasingly impatient with this totality of the circumstances test, including the great liberal textualist Hugo Black, who had been a opponent of the voluntariness test because he just thought it was too subjective. So they took the case. It certainly was not a sympathetic one in the sense that Miranda was not the most sympathetic defendant, but the court thought the time was right. And they decided in Miranda to rethink Fifth Amendment law."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The court chose the Miranda case because it came up at the right time, at a time when all of the judges were increasingly impatient with this totality of the circumstances test, including the great liberal textualist Hugo Black, who had been a opponent of the voluntariness test because he just thought it was too subjective. So they took the case. It certainly was not a sympathetic one in the sense that Miranda was not the most sympathetic defendant, but the court thought the time was right. And they decided in Miranda to rethink Fifth Amendment law. Wow, so during his case, what did Miranda argue? So why did he think that his confession should be thrown out? Well, Miranda's case attracted a lot of attention because everyone knew the Supreme Court was very interested in the law of confessions and trying to come up with a new rule for addressing some of the issues."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they decided in Miranda to rethink Fifth Amendment law. Wow, so during his case, what did Miranda argue? So why did he think that his confession should be thrown out? Well, Miranda's case attracted a lot of attention because everyone knew the Supreme Court was very interested in the law of confessions and trying to come up with a new rule for addressing some of the issues. And so he had a very good lawyer, John Flynn. Flynn, interestingly enough, argued that Miranda's right to counsel had been violated. It was only the police and Miranda who were in the interview room talking to each other, and there was no lawyer there."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, Miranda's case attracted a lot of attention because everyone knew the Supreme Court was very interested in the law of confessions and trying to come up with a new rule for addressing some of the issues. And so he had a very good lawyer, John Flynn. Flynn, interestingly enough, argued that Miranda's right to counsel had been violated. It was only the police and Miranda who were in the interview room talking to each other, and there was no lawyer there. And so Flynn argued that this violated Miranda's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, as the case developed and ultimately the opinion was released, the Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Amendment argument and instead went with a Fifth Amendment argument. The court said that what had been violated by the procedures here was Miranda's right against being compelled to incriminate himself."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It was only the police and Miranda who were in the interview room talking to each other, and there was no lawyer there. And so Flynn argued that this violated Miranda's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, as the case developed and ultimately the opinion was released, the Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Amendment argument and instead went with a Fifth Amendment argument. The court said that what had been violated by the procedures here was Miranda's right against being compelled to incriminate himself. And the court said that there needed to be certain warnings given to Miranda and certain procedures followed to make sure that confessions given by suspects like him were admissible in court. Flynn never said the confession was compelled in the sense that it was coerced by threats or promises or compulsion or gunpoint, but the fact that he gave the confession without knowing his rights to silence or having an attorney present while in police custody made him, in effect, surrender a right that he didn't fully realize and appreciate. The state was represented by a very prominent attorney, Telford Taylor, and he said that you should retain the totality of the circumstances test and not change the law."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The court said that what had been violated by the procedures here was Miranda's right against being compelled to incriminate himself. And the court said that there needed to be certain warnings given to Miranda and certain procedures followed to make sure that confessions given by suspects like him were admissible in court. Flynn never said the confession was compelled in the sense that it was coerced by threats or promises or compulsion or gunpoint, but the fact that he gave the confession without knowing his rights to silence or having an attorney present while in police custody made him, in effect, surrender a right that he didn't fully realize and appreciate. The state was represented by a very prominent attorney, Telford Taylor, and he said that you should retain the totality of the circumstances test and not change the law. But the Supreme Court disagreed, and on June 13th, 1966, it announced its five to four decision in the Miranda case. So what actually happened to Ernesto Miranda after the Supreme Court case? Well, the fallout from the decision was interesting."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The state was represented by a very prominent attorney, Telford Taylor, and he said that you should retain the totality of the circumstances test and not change the law. But the Supreme Court disagreed, and on June 13th, 1966, it announced its five to four decision in the Miranda case. So what actually happened to Ernesto Miranda after the Supreme Court case? Well, the fallout from the decision was interesting. Miranda assumed that he was going to be released because the Supreme Court had ruled his confession inadmissible, and that was a pivotal piece of evidence without which the prosecution was not going to be able to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And so Miranda's father ordered a bottle of whiskey that they were going to open to celebrate his release. But unfortunately for Miranda, and I suspect fortunately for the citizens of Phoenix, Miranda had made a few statements along the way."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the fallout from the decision was interesting. Miranda assumed that he was going to be released because the Supreme Court had ruled his confession inadmissible, and that was a pivotal piece of evidence without which the prosecution was not going to be able to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And so Miranda's father ordered a bottle of whiskey that they were going to open to celebrate his release. But unfortunately for Miranda, and I suspect fortunately for the citizens of Phoenix, Miranda had made a few statements along the way. He had threatened his common law wife that he was going to get out and was going to come back and try to take the kids away from her. And she went to police and reported that Miranda had confessed the crime to her. And of course, a confession to a private citizen, a common law wife, is not the same thing as a confession to a police officer."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But unfortunately for Miranda, and I suspect fortunately for the citizens of Phoenix, Miranda had made a few statements along the way. He had threatened his common law wife that he was going to get out and was going to come back and try to take the kids away from her. And she went to police and reported that Miranda had confessed the crime to her. And of course, a confession to a private citizen, a common law wife, is not the same thing as a confession to a police officer. And so the case was retried. Miranda's confession to his common law wife was used in evidence against him. Miranda was convicted, and I guess it's fair to say that bottle of whiskey went unopened."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And of course, a confession to a private citizen, a common law wife, is not the same thing as a confession to a police officer. And so the case was retried. Miranda's confession to his common law wife was used in evidence against him. Miranda was convicted, and I guess it's fair to say that bottle of whiskey went unopened. All right, this is very interesting because we see this a lot on TV procedurals and also just in, you know, our sort of everyday policing. So how is this Miranda rule applied today? Has it developed at all over time?"}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Miranda was convicted, and I guess it's fair to say that bottle of whiskey went unopened. All right, this is very interesting because we see this a lot on TV procedurals and also just in, you know, our sort of everyday policing. So how is this Miranda rule applied today? Has it developed at all over time? Yes, what the Supreme Court said was basically two things were going to have to happen before a confession given by someone who was in police custody could be admitted at a trial. The first is that the suspect would have to be given Miranda warnings, that is, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Has it developed at all over time? Yes, what the Supreme Court said was basically two things were going to have to happen before a confession given by someone who was in police custody could be admitted at a trial. The first is that the suspect would have to be given Miranda warnings, that is, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you. You have a right to an attorney before you answer any questions. And if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. So those are the famous Miranda warnings."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Anything you say can be used against you. You have a right to an attorney before you answer any questions. And if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. So those are the famous Miranda warnings. And I think a lot of people have seen those on TV shows or other programs. And there is a second feature, though, of Miranda that I think is much more important and in some ways much more harmful to society. It's what is known as the waiver requirement."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So those are the famous Miranda warnings. And I think a lot of people have seen those on TV shows or other programs. And there is a second feature, though, of Miranda that I think is much more important and in some ways much more harmful to society. It's what is known as the waiver requirement. Police officers must ask a suspect, do you agree to answer questions? And if the suspect says no, then the police can't ask that suspect any questions, no matter how briefly, no matter how reasonable the questions might be. And so it's this warning and waiver procedure that the Supreme Court put in place."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's what is known as the waiver requirement. Police officers must ask a suspect, do you agree to answer questions? And if the suspect says no, then the police can't ask that suspect any questions, no matter how briefly, no matter how reasonable the questions might be. And so it's this warning and waiver procedure that the Supreme Court put in place. So that core right remains the law of the land. So there are some situations where Miranda is not in place. One of them is if a suspect is not in custody."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so it's this warning and waiver procedure that the Supreme Court put in place. So that core right remains the law of the land. So there are some situations where Miranda is not in place. One of them is if a suspect is not in custody. For example, if the police are responding to a crime and question people on the scene there, that's not a situation where there is what's known in the Miranda opinion as the inherent compulsion of police questioning. That's just ordinary citizen-police interaction and special warnings aren't required there. Also, if suspects agree to come down to the police station and talk, there's no requirement of a Miranda warning."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One of them is if a suspect is not in custody. For example, if the police are responding to a crime and question people on the scene there, that's not a situation where there is what's known in the Miranda opinion as the inherent compulsion of police questioning. That's just ordinary citizen-police interaction and special warnings aren't required there. Also, if suspects agree to come down to the police station and talk, there's no requirement of a Miranda warning. And in very rare situations, if there is an extremely pressing public safety need, police officers need not give Miranda warnings. For example, if they've apprehended a terrorist who's hidden a bomb, police can ask questions without giving the Miranda warning. How has the Miranda case and later cases that interpret Miranda reflect the way that the court balances individual liberty and the constitutional rights of defendants with public safety and the needs of law enforcement?"}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Also, if suspects agree to come down to the police station and talk, there's no requirement of a Miranda warning. And in very rare situations, if there is an extremely pressing public safety need, police officers need not give Miranda warnings. For example, if they've apprehended a terrorist who's hidden a bomb, police can ask questions without giving the Miranda warning. How has the Miranda case and later cases that interpret Miranda reflect the way that the court balances individual liberty and the constitutional rights of defendants with public safety and the needs of law enforcement? When the Supreme Court looked at the Miranda case, there were two competing concerns at play. One was to make sure that suspects like Miranda were treated fairly, but the other was to make sure that law enforcement agencies could effectively investigate crime. And what resulted out of Miranda was, I think it's fair to say, something of a compromise decision."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How has the Miranda case and later cases that interpret Miranda reflect the way that the court balances individual liberty and the constitutional rights of defendants with public safety and the needs of law enforcement? When the Supreme Court looked at the Miranda case, there were two competing concerns at play. One was to make sure that suspects like Miranda were treated fairly, but the other was to make sure that law enforcement agencies could effectively investigate crime. And what resulted out of Miranda was, I think it's fair to say, something of a compromise decision. There were some who argued that police officers should never be able to question suspects once they were taken into custody, that suspects should receive a lawyer. And of course, a lawyer would immediately tell a suspect, don't say anything at all. Miranda didn't go that far."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what resulted out of Miranda was, I think it's fair to say, something of a compromise decision. There were some who argued that police officers should never be able to question suspects once they were taken into custody, that suspects should receive a lawyer. And of course, a lawyer would immediately tell a suspect, don't say anything at all. Miranda didn't go that far. And I think the reason it didn't go that far is there are very significant countervailing concerns. A lot of crimes cannot be solved unless a suspect is willing to give some statements and provide information that police can check out. The Miranda case itself is a good illustration of that."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Miranda didn't go that far. And I think the reason it didn't go that far is there are very significant countervailing concerns. A lot of crimes cannot be solved unless a suspect is willing to give some statements and provide information that police can check out. The Miranda case itself is a good illustration of that. The victim in that case, because the crime was committed at nighttime and in the dark, was unable to give a positive identification of Miranda. And it was only when police were able to get a statement from him that they were in a position to move forward and prosecute him and to take a dangerous rapist off the streets of Phoenix, Arizona. It's, listeners should definitely check out Professor Cassell's study written with Richard Fowles in 1998 called Handcuffing the Cops, which looked at FBI data for crime clearance rates in the two years after Miranda, which fell significantly."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Miranda case itself is a good illustration of that. The victim in that case, because the crime was committed at nighttime and in the dark, was unable to give a positive identification of Miranda. And it was only when police were able to get a statement from him that they were in a position to move forward and prosecute him and to take a dangerous rapist off the streets of Phoenix, Arizona. It's, listeners should definitely check out Professor Cassell's study written with Richard Fowles in 1998 called Handcuffing the Cops, which looked at FBI data for crime clearance rates in the two years after Miranda, which fell significantly. And they concluded that Miranda warnings were the main cause of this decline. But it's really important to stress that other scholars have questioned the study and have also noted that even if Miranda initially made it more difficult for officials to interrogate suspects, the police have since adjusted to Miranda. In fact, they've come often to embrace it, concluding that basically saying the magic words and Mirandizing suspects frees up the police to employ a range of sophisticated strategies to get people to confess anyway."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's, listeners should definitely check out Professor Cassell's study written with Richard Fowles in 1998 called Handcuffing the Cops, which looked at FBI data for crime clearance rates in the two years after Miranda, which fell significantly. And they concluded that Miranda warnings were the main cause of this decline. But it's really important to stress that other scholars have questioned the study and have also noted that even if Miranda initially made it more difficult for officials to interrogate suspects, the police have since adjusted to Miranda. In fact, they've come often to embrace it, concluding that basically saying the magic words and Mirandizing suspects frees up the police to employ a range of sophisticated strategies to get people to confess anyway. And for this reason, when the Miranda case was reaffirmed, far from being upset, the police in many cases welcomed the certainty that Miranda provides. So for all these reasons, I think it's fair to say just descriptively that Miranda, regardless of the empirical dispute about whether or not it has discouraged confessions, has been accepted by law enforcement by and large. It's been affirmed by the Supreme Court and at least for the immediate future, it's here to stay."}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, they've come often to embrace it, concluding that basically saying the magic words and Mirandizing suspects frees up the police to employ a range of sophisticated strategies to get people to confess anyway. And for this reason, when the Miranda case was reaffirmed, far from being upset, the police in many cases welcomed the certainty that Miranda provides. So for all these reasons, I think it's fair to say just descriptively that Miranda, regardless of the empirical dispute about whether or not it has discouraged confessions, has been accepted by law enforcement by and large. It's been affirmed by the Supreme Court and at least for the immediate future, it's here to stay. So we've learned that the ruling in Miranda versus Arizona arose out of concern that suspects in police custody might confess out of coercion or lack of knowledge about their own rights. The decision in Miranda that suspects must be informed of their rights helps to protect individuals accused of a crime from surrendering their Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate. But has Miranda harmed the ability of police to investigate crimes by preventing them from obtaining important information?"}, {"video_title": "Miranda v. Arizona   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's been affirmed by the Supreme Court and at least for the immediate future, it's here to stay. So we've learned that the ruling in Miranda versus Arizona arose out of concern that suspects in police custody might confess out of coercion or lack of knowledge about their own rights. The decision in Miranda that suspects must be informed of their rights helps to protect individuals accused of a crime from surrendering their Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate. But has Miranda harmed the ability of police to investigate crimes by preventing them from obtaining important information? Professor Cassell suggests that the broad application of Miranda has hampered police investigations. By contrast, Jeff Rosen argues that police have adjusted to working within the confines of Miranda and use other techniques to investigate crime. To learn more about Miranda versus Arizona, visit the National Constitution Center's interactive constitution and Khan Academy's resources on US government and politics."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The 10th Amendment was specifically designed to allay those fears. It reads, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. So what does this actually mean? To learn more, I sought out the help of some experts. Randy Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, and Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Robert Shapiro is the Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law, and Dean of Emory Law School. So Professor Barnett, can you tell us a little bit just about what that means?"}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more, I sought out the help of some experts. Randy Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, and Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Robert Shapiro is the Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law, and Dean of Emory Law School. So Professor Barnett, can you tell us a little bit just about what that means? It's a little dense. During the ratification debates, there was lots of opposition to the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution only was ratified after the proponents of the Constitution, who called themselves Federalists, promised that amendments would be made to the Constitution because it was the lack of a Bill of Rights and other changes that caused people to oppose it."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So Professor Barnett, can you tell us a little bit just about what that means? It's a little dense. During the ratification debates, there was lots of opposition to the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution only was ratified after the proponents of the Constitution, who called themselves Federalists, promised that amendments would be made to the Constitution because it was the lack of a Bill of Rights and other changes that caused people to oppose it. And so they said they would put a Bill of Rights on afterwards, and at that point, in these ratification conventions, conventions started proposing amendments to Congress that accompanied their ratification. So they ratified it, and they said, but here are some changes we wanna see made. And one of the changes that several states asked for was wording that was very much like what became the 10th Amendment, a reaffirmation of the fact that the federal government was going to be one of limited and enumerated powers."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, the Constitution only was ratified after the proponents of the Constitution, who called themselves Federalists, promised that amendments would be made to the Constitution because it was the lack of a Bill of Rights and other changes that caused people to oppose it. And so they said they would put a Bill of Rights on afterwards, and at that point, in these ratification conventions, conventions started proposing amendments to Congress that accompanied their ratification. So they ratified it, and they said, but here are some changes we wanna see made. And one of the changes that several states asked for was wording that was very much like what became the 10th Amendment, a reaffirmation of the fact that the federal government was going to be one of limited and enumerated powers. And the 10th Amendment is an expression of the idea that while there are more powers given to the central government of the United States, it's still the case that the only power that the central government, the national government, can exercise are powers specifically given to it by the Constitution. So the 10th Amendment is an embodiment of the structural principle that the only powers that the national government has are those that are delegated to it in the Constitution, as opposed to the states who have general powers within their boundaries. One of the things that I think we see in the Bill of Rights is many examples of the framers responding to particular historical evils that they had witnessed in England or in Europe more generally."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And one of the changes that several states asked for was wording that was very much like what became the 10th Amendment, a reaffirmation of the fact that the federal government was going to be one of limited and enumerated powers. And the 10th Amendment is an expression of the idea that while there are more powers given to the central government of the United States, it's still the case that the only power that the central government, the national government, can exercise are powers specifically given to it by the Constitution. So the 10th Amendment is an embodiment of the structural principle that the only powers that the national government has are those that are delegated to it in the Constitution, as opposed to the states who have general powers within their boundaries. One of the things that I think we see in the Bill of Rights is many examples of the framers responding to particular historical evils that they had witnessed in England or in Europe more generally. So was there something in particular they had in mind they're trying to prevent with the 10th Amendment? I think the particular evil they were concerned with was the concern of a distant, powerful, centralized government. That had been the government of King George."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One of the things that I think we see in the Bill of Rights is many examples of the framers responding to particular historical evils that they had witnessed in England or in Europe more generally. So was there something in particular they had in mind they're trying to prevent with the 10th Amendment? I think the particular evil they were concerned with was the concern of a distant, powerful, centralized government. That had been the government of King George. They wanted to make sure that wasn't the government of President George Washington. And the 10th Amendment states that the national government is not an all-powerful body with general authority to do whatever it wants. It's in line with the structure of the Constitution, which says there are certain powers given to the national government."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That had been the government of King George. They wanted to make sure that wasn't the government of President George Washington. And the 10th Amendment states that the national government is not an all-powerful body with general authority to do whatever it wants. It's in line with the structure of the Constitution, which says there are certain powers given to the national government. There certainly are definite powers given to them, but only some powers. And that idea of being concerned of a distant, strong government far away from the people is really what underlies the principle of the Constitution. And that's what we see in the 10th Amendment, specifying that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's in line with the structure of the Constitution, which says there are certain powers given to the national government. There certainly are definite powers given to them, but only some powers. And that idea of being concerned of a distant, strong government far away from the people is really what underlies the principle of the Constitution. And that's what we see in the 10th Amendment, specifying that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states. So what would you say is important about the 10th Amendment? It reaffirms that the basic structure of the Constitution is one of limited and enumerated powers. How limited, of course, is a matter of debate, but the fact that they are limited and that all other powers are reserved to the states respectively or to the people is now a matter of constitutional law."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's what we see in the 10th Amendment, specifying that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states. So what would you say is important about the 10th Amendment? It reaffirms that the basic structure of the Constitution is one of limited and enumerated powers. How limited, of course, is a matter of debate, but the fact that they are limited and that all other powers are reserved to the states respectively or to the people is now a matter of constitutional law. It's a matter of the text. The other thing that's interesting about the 10th Amendment is that in Congress, they added the phrase, or to the people, at the end. The states did not propose that language."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How limited, of course, is a matter of debate, but the fact that they are limited and that all other powers are reserved to the states respectively or to the people is now a matter of constitutional law. It's a matter of the text. The other thing that's interesting about the 10th Amendment is that in Congress, they added the phrase, or to the people, at the end. The states did not propose that language. The states proposed the wording of the 10th Amendment, and it just would have stopped where it said, are reserved to the states. And so that made the 9th Amendment less a states' rights provision than the states had wanted and less a states' rights provision than people read it today. So the people have rights."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The states did not propose that language. The states proposed the wording of the 10th Amendment, and it just would have stopped where it said, are reserved to the states. And so that made the 9th Amendment less a states' rights provision than the states had wanted and less a states' rights provision than people read it today. So the people have rights. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anyone except individuals or persons have rights. It doesn't say states have rights. The 10th Amendment is about reserved powers, and those are the powers that the people have to govern themselves as well as other powers."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the people have rights. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anyone except individuals or persons have rights. It doesn't say states have rights. The 10th Amendment is about reserved powers, and those are the powers that the people have to govern themselves as well as other powers. And what this shows is that the people not only have rights, they also have powers. Perhaps the most important thing, however, is to note that these two are separate provisions, that the Supreme Court has sometimes read the 10th Amendment or the 9th Amendment as meaning basically the 10th Amendment, that the people have reserved powers. But we know they're different because they are put in there separately."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The 10th Amendment is about reserved powers, and those are the powers that the people have to govern themselves as well as other powers. And what this shows is that the people not only have rights, they also have powers. Perhaps the most important thing, however, is to note that these two are separate provisions, that the Supreme Court has sometimes read the 10th Amendment or the 9th Amendment as meaning basically the 10th Amendment, that the people have reserved powers. But we know they're different because they are put in there separately. And in fact, Madison placed a much higher premium on the importance of the 9th Amendment as opposed to the 10th. The 10th Amendment and the 9th Amendment really speak to the structure of the constitutional system, what it means to have a constitution setting up a national government. So the 10th Amendment is really a statement of the overall structure of what we call federalism, certain powers given to the national government and then powers reserved to the states."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But we know they're different because they are put in there separately. And in fact, Madison placed a much higher premium on the importance of the 9th Amendment as opposed to the 10th. The 10th Amendment and the 9th Amendment really speak to the structure of the constitutional system, what it means to have a constitution setting up a national government. So the 10th Amendment is really a statement of the overall structure of what we call federalism, certain powers given to the national government and then powers reserved to the states. The 9th Amendment speaks more to the rights side of things. That is, we have certain rights which are set forth in the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment about freedom of speech and religion, the Fourth Amendment about protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. And there was some concern expressed in the late 1700s that if you specified those rights, did that somehow mean that the national government could do whatever else it wanted?"}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the 10th Amendment is really a statement of the overall structure of what we call federalism, certain powers given to the national government and then powers reserved to the states. The 9th Amendment speaks more to the rights side of things. That is, we have certain rights which are set forth in the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment about freedom of speech and religion, the Fourth Amendment about protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. And there was some concern expressed in the late 1700s that if you specified those rights, did that somehow mean that the national government could do whatever else it wanted? And so the 9th Amendment says, the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. So it's aligned with the idea that the national government has certain powers, but they are limited because other powers are reserved to the states. And the power of the national government may also be limited because there are rights that are reserved to the people."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there was some concern expressed in the late 1700s that if you specified those rights, did that somehow mean that the national government could do whatever else it wanted? And so the 9th Amendment says, the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. So it's aligned with the idea that the national government has certain powers, but they are limited because other powers are reserved to the states. And the power of the national government may also be limited because there are rights that are reserved to the people. How do you think the 10th Amendment tells us that the framers intended the federal government and the state governments to relate to each other? The 10th Amendment really is a little more about structure than about specific content. So I think the 10th Amendment embodies the idea that we should think carefully about what are the powers given to the national government, understanding that whatever is given to the national government may take powers away from the states."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the power of the national government may also be limited because there are rights that are reserved to the people. How do you think the 10th Amendment tells us that the framers intended the federal government and the state governments to relate to each other? The 10th Amendment really is a little more about structure than about specific content. So I think the 10th Amendment embodies the idea that we should think carefully about what are the powers given to the national government, understanding that whatever is given to the national government may take powers away from the states. And so the 10th Amendment is really a text that embodies the overall principle of federalism that is implicit throughout the United States Constitution. In fact, the 10th Amendment is in some respects kind of a replay of the first sentence of Article I that says that Congress only has the powers herein granted. States have the powers."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So I think the 10th Amendment embodies the idea that we should think carefully about what are the powers given to the national government, understanding that whatever is given to the national government may take powers away from the states. And so the 10th Amendment is really a text that embodies the overall principle of federalism that is implicit throughout the United States Constitution. In fact, the 10th Amendment is in some respects kind of a replay of the first sentence of Article I that says that Congress only has the powers herein granted. States have the powers. By contrast, the 10th Amendment affirms that states have the powers that are not granted to the federal government, but are granted to them under state constitutions. So just as the federal government has the powers it has under the US Constitution, state governments have the powers they have under state constitutions, and the people reserve all other powers to themselves. So how has the 10th Amendment been interpreted by the Supreme Court over time?"}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "States have the powers. By contrast, the 10th Amendment affirms that states have the powers that are not granted to the federal government, but are granted to them under state constitutions. So just as the federal government has the powers it has under the US Constitution, state governments have the powers they have under state constitutions, and the people reserve all other powers to themselves. So how has the 10th Amendment been interpreted by the Supreme Court over time? I imagine there have been some cases about this as the federal government has gotten more powerful. Exactly. So the 10th Amendment, which really is just about the structure of government saying some power is given to the national government, and there's a concern about the power reserved to the states, the understanding of that has really evolved with the understanding of the breadth of the power of the national government."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So how has the 10th Amendment been interpreted by the Supreme Court over time? I imagine there have been some cases about this as the federal government has gotten more powerful. Exactly. So the 10th Amendment, which really is just about the structure of government saying some power is given to the national government, and there's a concern about the power reserved to the states, the understanding of that has really evolved with the understanding of the breadth of the power of the national government. And what we've seen over the course of history in the United States is that there's been a broader understanding of the power of the government of the United States. That expansion has really come mainly in two forms. One is with regard to the government's power to regulate interstate commerce, and the broad interpretation of the national government's power to regulate commerce."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the 10th Amendment, which really is just about the structure of government saying some power is given to the national government, and there's a concern about the power reserved to the states, the understanding of that has really evolved with the understanding of the breadth of the power of the national government. And what we've seen over the course of history in the United States is that there's been a broader understanding of the power of the government of the United States. That expansion has really come mainly in two forms. One is with regard to the government's power to regulate interstate commerce, and the broad interpretation of the national government's power to regulate commerce. We saw that particularly in the context of the Great Depression, when there was viewed to be tremendous social dislocation, tremendous economic problems in the United States, to the point at which some feared that the American democracy might collapse, and the national government then was allowed to exercise more authority over the economy. The Supreme Court in the New Deal declared the 10th Amendment a truism, meaning as long as you find a power, then you can't have a 10th Amendment objection to that power. That's right as a logical matter, except that if you continue to expand your interpretation of those powers, then you are basically violating the spirit, if not the letter of the 10th Amendment."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One is with regard to the government's power to regulate interstate commerce, and the broad interpretation of the national government's power to regulate commerce. We saw that particularly in the context of the Great Depression, when there was viewed to be tremendous social dislocation, tremendous economic problems in the United States, to the point at which some feared that the American democracy might collapse, and the national government then was allowed to exercise more authority over the economy. The Supreme Court in the New Deal declared the 10th Amendment a truism, meaning as long as you find a power, then you can't have a 10th Amendment objection to that power. That's right as a logical matter, except that if you continue to expand your interpretation of those powers, then you are basically violating the spirit, if not the letter of the 10th Amendment. And finally then, during the Rehnquist Court, until today, the Supreme Court started using the 10th Amendment to enforce the spirit of the Constitution, which preserved the existence of states, even when Congress was claiming powers that went far beyond those that were originally mentioned in the Constitution's text. So in some cases in the early 20th century, you did see the United States Supreme Court interpreting the 10th Amendment to limit to some extent what the national government could do if say the issue were child labor or minimum wage laws, things like that. A question is, is that really something that the national government can do?"}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's right as a logical matter, except that if you continue to expand your interpretation of those powers, then you are basically violating the spirit, if not the letter of the 10th Amendment. And finally then, during the Rehnquist Court, until today, the Supreme Court started using the 10th Amendment to enforce the spirit of the Constitution, which preserved the existence of states, even when Congress was claiming powers that went far beyond those that were originally mentioned in the Constitution's text. So in some cases in the early 20th century, you did see the United States Supreme Court interpreting the 10th Amendment to limit to some extent what the national government could do if say the issue were child labor or minimum wage laws, things like that. A question is, is that really something that the national government can do? But in the wake of, we say, the New Deal legislation that was put forward by Congress in the Great Depression of the 1930s and approved by the Supreme Court, we've seen the Supreme Court take a much narrower understanding of the 10th Amendment. Or again, we can really see the 10th Amendment in balance with the power of the national government. And as we've understood a broader role for the national government, the role reserved to the states has shrunk."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A question is, is that really something that the national government can do? But in the wake of, we say, the New Deal legislation that was put forward by Congress in the Great Depression of the 1930s and approved by the Supreme Court, we've seen the Supreme Court take a much narrower understanding of the 10th Amendment. Or again, we can really see the 10th Amendment in balance with the power of the national government. And as we've understood a broader role for the national government, the role reserved to the states has shrunk. This is fascinating. So one thing that interests me about this in terms of US history is the way that later on, the 14th Amendment is interpreted to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the states. So how does the 14th Amendment's protection of equal citizenship rights then intersect with the idea that states have certain individual powers?"}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And as we've understood a broader role for the national government, the role reserved to the states has shrunk. This is fascinating. So one thing that interests me about this in terms of US history is the way that later on, the 14th Amendment is interpreted to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the states. So how does the 14th Amendment's protection of equal citizenship rights then intersect with the idea that states have certain individual powers? So certainly in the wake of the Civil War, we saw the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the 13th Amendment banning slavery, the 14th Amendment guaranteeing rights of national citizenship and equal protection and due process, and the 15th Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote, all of which expanded the power of the national government. And particularly the 14th Amendment and its guarantee of equal protection of laws and due process of laws were really new national restrictions on state authority, a new empowerment of the national government to protect individuals no matter in what state they were. So since the structure of the 10th Amendment is not about protecting a particular body of power, it would be natural that as the 14th Amendment expands the role of the national government, that there'd be less for the states to do completely immune from federal intrusion."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So how does the 14th Amendment's protection of equal citizenship rights then intersect with the idea that states have certain individual powers? So certainly in the wake of the Civil War, we saw the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the 13th Amendment banning slavery, the 14th Amendment guaranteeing rights of national citizenship and equal protection and due process, and the 15th Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote, all of which expanded the power of the national government. And particularly the 14th Amendment and its guarantee of equal protection of laws and due process of laws were really new national restrictions on state authority, a new empowerment of the national government to protect individuals no matter in what state they were. So since the structure of the 10th Amendment is not about protecting a particular body of power, it would be natural that as the 14th Amendment expands the role of the national government, that there'd be less for the states to do completely immune from federal intrusion. The 14th Amendment represents a fundamental change to our system of federalism, precisely because it has a Section 5 in the 14th Amendment, which empowers Congress to enforce the provisions of the previous four sections, including Section 1, which has the Citizenship Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause. So Congress has given an enumerated power to protect individuals from their own state governments violating their fundamental rights under those Section 1 provisions. That's a change in our federalism that is consistent with the 10th Amendment because it's a power that is delegated to Congress by the Constitution, by Section 5 of the 14th Amendment."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So since the structure of the 10th Amendment is not about protecting a particular body of power, it would be natural that as the 14th Amendment expands the role of the national government, that there'd be less for the states to do completely immune from federal intrusion. The 14th Amendment represents a fundamental change to our system of federalism, precisely because it has a Section 5 in the 14th Amendment, which empowers Congress to enforce the provisions of the previous four sections, including Section 1, which has the Citizenship Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause. So Congress has given an enumerated power to protect individuals from their own state governments violating their fundamental rights under those Section 1 provisions. That's a change in our federalism that is consistent with the 10th Amendment because it's a power that is delegated to Congress by the Constitution, by Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. What happened to that, however, immediately after it was enacted is the Supreme Court decided, and I think quite consciously in their minds, decided that this change in our system of federalism was objectionable. In fact, it was the product of radical Republicans in Congress and it really needed to be undone. And so in one of the earliest examples of what I would call living constitutionalism, a series of cases, in a series of cases, the Supreme Court cut back on the powers of Congress to protect individuals from the rights of their citizens in cases like the Slaughterhouse Cases or United States versus Cruikshank or Plessy versus Ferguson."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's a change in our federalism that is consistent with the 10th Amendment because it's a power that is delegated to Congress by the Constitution, by Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. What happened to that, however, immediately after it was enacted is the Supreme Court decided, and I think quite consciously in their minds, decided that this change in our system of federalism was objectionable. In fact, it was the product of radical Republicans in Congress and it really needed to be undone. And so in one of the earliest examples of what I would call living constitutionalism, a series of cases, in a series of cases, the Supreme Court cut back on the powers of Congress to protect individuals from the rights of their citizens in cases like the Slaughterhouse Cases or United States versus Cruikshank or Plessy versus Ferguson. These are cases, or the civil rights cases are more, in which the Supreme Court actually cut back on the scope in order to restore the federalism that existed prior to the Civil War that the justices preferred. I think based on its text and its interpretation over time, we see the 10th Amendment really being a recognition of the federalist structure of the United States Constitution, meaning there will be a national government and there will be states. And that has not changed over time."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so in one of the earliest examples of what I would call living constitutionalism, a series of cases, in a series of cases, the Supreme Court cut back on the powers of Congress to protect individuals from the rights of their citizens in cases like the Slaughterhouse Cases or United States versus Cruikshank or Plessy versus Ferguson. These are cases, or the civil rights cases are more, in which the Supreme Court actually cut back on the scope in order to restore the federalism that existed prior to the Civil War that the justices preferred. I think based on its text and its interpretation over time, we see the 10th Amendment really being a recognition of the federalist structure of the United States Constitution, meaning there will be a national government and there will be states. And that has not changed over time. What has changed over time is an understanding about the scope of the role of the national government, how much power the national government needs either to regulate the national economy or to protect individual rights. Certainly the interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the enactment of the 14th Amendment have been key elements in expanding the role of national power. But all of this expansion of national power is completely consistent with the language of the 10th Amendment, which again, does not specify any particular kind of power reserved to the states."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that has not changed over time. What has changed over time is an understanding about the scope of the role of the national government, how much power the national government needs either to regulate the national economy or to protect individual rights. Certainly the interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the enactment of the 14th Amendment have been key elements in expanding the role of national power. But all of this expansion of national power is completely consistent with the language of the 10th Amendment, which again, does not specify any particular kind of power reserved to the states. It just recognizes that there will be a national government and there will be states. So how have the courts been utilizing the 10th Amendment in recent years? In recent years, the courts have been using the 10th Amendment not so much for what it says, but for its spirit."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But all of this expansion of national power is completely consistent with the language of the 10th Amendment, which again, does not specify any particular kind of power reserved to the states. It just recognizes that there will be a national government and there will be states. So how have the courts been utilizing the 10th Amendment in recent years? In recent years, the courts have been using the 10th Amendment not so much for what it says, but for its spirit. The idea that it reaffirms the importance of states in our constitutional structure. What's happened since the New Deal is the powers of Congress under its enumerated powers have been so broadly or expansively interpreted that if they were all to be applied to states the way they are applied to private individuals and private companies, essentially Congress could basically run all the states using its commerce power combined with its necessary improper clause power, et cetera. What the Supreme Court has done in recent years is says this violates the first principles of our constitutional order, which says states are important, the 10th Amendment affirms that, and therefore they've created certain carve out or special protections for states from these broadly or expansively read congressional powers."}, {"video_title": "The Tenth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In recent years, the courts have been using the 10th Amendment not so much for what it says, but for its spirit. The idea that it reaffirms the importance of states in our constitutional structure. What's happened since the New Deal is the powers of Congress under its enumerated powers have been so broadly or expansively interpreted that if they were all to be applied to states the way they are applied to private individuals and private companies, essentially Congress could basically run all the states using its commerce power combined with its necessary improper clause power, et cetera. What the Supreme Court has done in recent years is says this violates the first principles of our constitutional order, which says states are important, the 10th Amendment affirms that, and therefore they've created certain carve out or special protections for states from these broadly or expansively read congressional powers. None of this is really stemming from the original meaning of the 10th Amendment, because what's already happened is the original meaning of the enumerated powers has already been exceeded, but what it's attempting to do is to keep in place the balance between federal and state powers that the 10th Amendment represented, but doing so in a way that's basically modern. It's adding the states to a list of protected entities, protected from expansive federal power. So we've learned that the 10th Amendment reaffirms that the federal government of the United States will be a limited government with enumerated powers, but as the scope of the federal government has grown, so has debate over the interpretation of the 10th Amendment."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Hi, this is Kim from Khan Academy, and today we're learning more about Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Decided in 1954, Brown v. Board was a landmark case that opened the door for desegregation and the modern civil rights movement. In Brown, the Supreme Court ruled that segregated schools for white and black children, which had been prevalent throughout the American South since the 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson legalized segregation, were in fact inherently unequal. The named plaintiff in this case, Oliver Brown, was the father of Linda, a third grader who had to take a bus to a segregated elementary school that was much farther from her home than the nearby school for white children. To learn more about the Brown case, I sought out the help of two experts. Theodore Shaw is the Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil Rights at the University of North Carolina School of Law. Michael McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallory Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The named plaintiff in this case, Oliver Brown, was the father of Linda, a third grader who had to take a bus to a segregated elementary school that was much farther from her home than the nearby school for white children. To learn more about the Brown case, I sought out the help of two experts. Theodore Shaw is the Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil Rights at the University of North Carolina School of Law. Michael McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallory Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. So Professor Shaw, could you just kind of set the stage for us? What was the overall social and political context behind this case? Well, Brown was decided in the Cold War era."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Michael McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallory Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. So Professor Shaw, could you just kind of set the stage for us? What was the overall social and political context behind this case? Well, Brown was decided in the Cold War era. I think that's important for reasons that I'll come back to. But it also was decided, I guess it was 58 years after the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy versus Ferguson that separate but equal railway cars were constitutional. Of course, that extended to all walks of life in the South."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, Brown was decided in the Cold War era. I think that's important for reasons that I'll come back to. But it also was decided, I guess it was 58 years after the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy versus Ferguson that separate but equal railway cars were constitutional. Of course, that extended to all walks of life in the South. And so what you had was Jim Crow segregation sustained and set in place by law. And Brown was the case that cracked the edifice of Jim Crow segregation. So it was an enormously important case."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Of course, that extended to all walks of life in the South. And so what you had was Jim Crow segregation sustained and set in place by law. And Brown was the case that cracked the edifice of Jim Crow segregation. So it was an enormously important case. It came after a long campaign by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to overturn Plessy. One thing that I think is really confusing about Plessy versus Ferguson is how it interacts with the 14th Amendment. So immediately after the Civil War, Congress passed and the states ratified the 14th Amendment, which gives equal protection under the law to all citizens."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it was an enormously important case. It came after a long campaign by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to overturn Plessy. One thing that I think is really confusing about Plessy versus Ferguson is how it interacts with the 14th Amendment. So immediately after the Civil War, Congress passed and the states ratified the 14th Amendment, which gives equal protection under the law to all citizens. But then Plessy versus Ferguson, just a couple decades later, legalizes segregation. Can you talk a little bit more about how the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted in Plessy and then later in Brown versus Board? The doctrine of separate but equal was itself a departure from the prior understanding of what the 14th Amendment meant."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So immediately after the Civil War, Congress passed and the states ratified the 14th Amendment, which gives equal protection under the law to all citizens. But then Plessy versus Ferguson, just a couple decades later, legalizes segregation. Can you talk a little bit more about how the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted in Plessy and then later in Brown versus Board? The doctrine of separate but equal was itself a departure from the prior understanding of what the 14th Amendment meant. In the immediate wake of the 14th Amendment, segregation was understood to be a violation of equal rights. The Congress of the United States passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited mandatory segregation of among other things, railroads. Now that was struck down in 1883, I believe it was, 1886, but for reasons not related to separate but equal or segregation."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The doctrine of separate but equal was itself a departure from the prior understanding of what the 14th Amendment meant. In the immediate wake of the 14th Amendment, segregation was understood to be a violation of equal rights. The Congress of the United States passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited mandatory segregation of among other things, railroads. Now that was struck down in 1883, I believe it was, 1886, but for reasons not related to separate but equal or segregation. But it's only in the late 1880s and 1890s that states begin passing Jim Crow legislation, like the law in Plessy versus Ferguson. I think Plessy very likely would have been, would have come out a different way had it come up 25 years earlier. It's really very difficult to understand the logic of Plessy because Plessy takes the point of view that segregation is okay because it treats everyone the same way and the sense of inferiority or insult that comes from segregation, the court just ignored."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now that was struck down in 1883, I believe it was, 1886, but for reasons not related to separate but equal or segregation. But it's only in the late 1880s and 1890s that states begin passing Jim Crow legislation, like the law in Plessy versus Ferguson. I think Plessy very likely would have been, would have come out a different way had it come up 25 years earlier. It's really very difficult to understand the logic of Plessy because Plessy takes the point of view that segregation is okay because it treats everyone the same way and the sense of inferiority or insult that comes from segregation, the court just ignored. You can read the opinion different ways and people do and have read the opinion different ways. A portion of the opinion makes it sound as though this is a kind of social science conclusion that segregation breeds a feeling of inferiority that has a deleterious effect on the black students' performance in school. There's a famous footnote in Brown versus Board of Education, footnote 11, in which some social scientists, and particularly Dr. Kenneth Clark, did a series of tests, the doll tests, in which they showed black and white dolls who were otherwise identical to little children, little black children, and they asked, who was the good doll, who was the bad doll, who was the pretty doll, who was the ugly doll?"}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's really very difficult to understand the logic of Plessy because Plessy takes the point of view that segregation is okay because it treats everyone the same way and the sense of inferiority or insult that comes from segregation, the court just ignored. You can read the opinion different ways and people do and have read the opinion different ways. A portion of the opinion makes it sound as though this is a kind of social science conclusion that segregation breeds a feeling of inferiority that has a deleterious effect on the black students' performance in school. There's a famous footnote in Brown versus Board of Education, footnote 11, in which some social scientists, and particularly Dr. Kenneth Clark, did a series of tests, the doll tests, in which they showed black and white dolls who were otherwise identical to little children, little black children, and they asked, who was the good doll, who was the bad doll, who was the pretty doll, who was the ugly doll? And the black children would invariably choose the white dolls as the better dolls and the black dolls as the inferior dolls. And then finally, the bombshell question, which one looks like you? And they would stop and choose the black doll and many times tears would come to their eyes."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's a famous footnote in Brown versus Board of Education, footnote 11, in which some social scientists, and particularly Dr. Kenneth Clark, did a series of tests, the doll tests, in which they showed black and white dolls who were otherwise identical to little children, little black children, and they asked, who was the good doll, who was the bad doll, who was the pretty doll, who was the ugly doll? And the black children would invariably choose the white dolls as the better dolls and the black dolls as the inferior dolls. And then finally, the bombshell question, which one looks like you? And they would stop and choose the black doll and many times tears would come to their eyes. And so this whole notion of the inferiority, that segregation imbued in black schoolchildren, was important and the Supreme Court had some very eloquent language about that. Everyone knew that the only reason to have laws requiring black and white to be separate was because of the feeling on the part of the dominant white group that the African race was inferior. I think it was a failure of political will, really, rather than a matter of constitutional or legal logic that led to that."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they would stop and choose the black doll and many times tears would come to their eyes. And so this whole notion of the inferiority, that segregation imbued in black schoolchildren, was important and the Supreme Court had some very eloquent language about that. Everyone knew that the only reason to have laws requiring black and white to be separate was because of the feeling on the part of the dominant white group that the African race was inferior. I think it was a failure of political will, really, rather than a matter of constitutional or legal logic that led to that. And then it took, what, almost 60 years before the Supreme Court would turn itself around. The late A. Leon Higginbotham, who sat on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, he used to say that Plessy was wrong the day it was decided. And I believe he was right about that."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I think it was a failure of political will, really, rather than a matter of constitutional or legal logic that led to that. And then it took, what, almost 60 years before the Supreme Court would turn itself around. The late A. Leon Higginbotham, who sat on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, he used to say that Plessy was wrong the day it was decided. And I believe he was right about that. If you go back and look at the rationale stated in Plessy, it doesn't hold up. It's not an intellectually honest decision. And having said that, if you look at Brown, it really did not overrule Plessy on its face with respect to segregation and Jim Crow across the board."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I believe he was right about that. If you go back and look at the rationale stated in Plessy, it doesn't hold up. It's not an intellectually honest decision. And having said that, if you look at Brown, it really did not overrule Plessy on its face with respect to segregation and Jim Crow across the board. What it did was say that in the field of public education, separate but equal is unconstitutional. Separate schools cannot be equal. And what followed Brown was a series of cases in all kinds of areas in which the court, sometimes without much of an opinion, cited Brown but struck down segregation in public libraries and public accommodations and transportation, et cetera."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And having said that, if you look at Brown, it really did not overrule Plessy on its face with respect to segregation and Jim Crow across the board. What it did was say that in the field of public education, separate but equal is unconstitutional. Separate schools cannot be equal. And what followed Brown was a series of cases in all kinds of areas in which the court, sometimes without much of an opinion, cited Brown but struck down segregation in public libraries and public accommodations and transportation, et cetera. The case that settled the long-running boycott in Montgomery, Alabama that catapulted Martin Luther King into the national and world stage, it was decided, it was resolved finally, the boycott was important, but it was resolved by this case that the Supreme Court decided and it cited Brown. So Thurgood Marshall and the Legal Defense Fund had kind of been chipping away at the edges of segregation and then they turned directly to school segregation in the Brown cases. So what kind of arguments did they use to challenge the system of school segregation?"}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what followed Brown was a series of cases in all kinds of areas in which the court, sometimes without much of an opinion, cited Brown but struck down segregation in public libraries and public accommodations and transportation, et cetera. The case that settled the long-running boycott in Montgomery, Alabama that catapulted Martin Luther King into the national and world stage, it was decided, it was resolved finally, the boycott was important, but it was resolved by this case that the Supreme Court decided and it cited Brown. So Thurgood Marshall and the Legal Defense Fund had kind of been chipping away at the edges of segregation and then they turned directly to school segregation in the Brown cases. So what kind of arguments did they use to challenge the system of school segregation? Thurgood Marshall and his co-counsel in the NAACP established a very careful strategy of one case at a time, sort of pushing the envelope of this idea that segregation is inconsistent with the demands of equal protection. And the interesting thing about Brown itself, the case challenging segregation in Topeka, Kansas, why Topeka, Kansas? Why was this such an excellent place to raise the challenge?"}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what kind of arguments did they use to challenge the system of school segregation? Thurgood Marshall and his co-counsel in the NAACP established a very careful strategy of one case at a time, sort of pushing the envelope of this idea that segregation is inconsistent with the demands of equal protection. And the interesting thing about Brown itself, the case challenging segregation in Topeka, Kansas, why Topeka, Kansas? Why was this such an excellent place to raise the challenge? And the reason is that the schools in Topeka were very substantially equal in quality. In Topeka, they actually had integrated high schools and middle schools. It was only the elementary schools that were segregated and the district court found and the Supreme Court did not disagree that in terms of their material advantages, that the black school was essentially just as good as the white school."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why was this such an excellent place to raise the challenge? And the reason is that the schools in Topeka were very substantially equal in quality. In Topeka, they actually had integrated high schools and middle schools. It was only the elementary schools that were segregated and the district court found and the Supreme Court did not disagree that in terms of their material advantages, that the black school was essentially just as good as the white school. And that's why the NAACP wanted to go after Topeka because then it went to the principle of the thing. It's one thing to attack a segregation when separate but equal is really just a fiction, but when separate but equal is a reality, at least pretty close to it, as in Topeka, you have to go after the actual principle that segregation is wrong in principle and not just wrong because it tends most of the time to lead to a material disadvantage. Brown was actually five cases."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It was only the elementary schools that were segregated and the district court found and the Supreme Court did not disagree that in terms of their material advantages, that the black school was essentially just as good as the white school. And that's why the NAACP wanted to go after Topeka because then it went to the principle of the thing. It's one thing to attack a segregation when separate but equal is really just a fiction, but when separate but equal is a reality, at least pretty close to it, as in Topeka, you have to go after the actual principle that segregation is wrong in principle and not just wrong because it tends most of the time to lead to a material disadvantage. Brown was actually five cases. The Brown case itself came from Topeka, Kansas. In many ways, the Supreme Court might've chosen to lead with the Brown case because it wasn't part of the South. And so in some ways, it might've been viewed as taking pressure off of the South, but there were five cases altogether."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Brown was actually five cases. The Brown case itself came from Topeka, Kansas. In many ways, the Supreme Court might've chosen to lead with the Brown case because it wasn't part of the South. And so in some ways, it might've been viewed as taking pressure off of the South, but there were five cases altogether. There was a case out of South Carolina, a case out of Virginia, a case out of Delaware, a case out of Washington, D.C., and then the Topeka case. And the Brown family was actually not even the only family named Brown in the Topeka case. And the other Brown case did not have their father available as the lead voice, and they wanted a man."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so in some ways, it might've been viewed as taking pressure off of the South, but there were five cases altogether. There was a case out of South Carolina, a case out of Virginia, a case out of Delaware, a case out of Washington, D.C., and then the Topeka case. And the Brown family was actually not even the only family named Brown in the Topeka case. And the other Brown case did not have their father available as the lead voice, and they wanted a man. And so Oliver Brown was the one they chose. They stipulated that the schools were in fact equal in all respects, and of course they weren't. It was never possible to make separate but equal equal."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the other Brown case did not have their father available as the lead voice, and they wanted a man. And so Oliver Brown was the one they chose. They stipulated that the schools were in fact equal in all respects, and of course they weren't. It was never possible to make separate but equal equal. But they stipulated that these schools were equal, the black and the white schools, because they wanted the court to be able to, or to have to, confront the issue of whether separate but equal per se was unconstitutional. Interesting, so it's this place where they're hoping not to have a ruling that, for example, oh, the schools for black children need to be brought up to code to be the same as white children, but they're trying to strike down the idea of segregation altogether. And indeed, they rule unanimously that separate but equal facilities are inherently unequal."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It was never possible to make separate but equal equal. But they stipulated that these schools were equal, the black and the white schools, because they wanted the court to be able to, or to have to, confront the issue of whether separate but equal per se was unconstitutional. Interesting, so it's this place where they're hoping not to have a ruling that, for example, oh, the schools for black children need to be brought up to code to be the same as white children, but they're trying to strike down the idea of segregation altogether. And indeed, they rule unanimously that separate but equal facilities are inherently unequal. The Supreme Court in Brown says, well, whatever may have been the status of education as a civil right back then, back in the 19th century, by now it surely is a civil right, and therefore there can be no discrimination with regard to it. Then one other thing that changed that I think the Supreme Court doesn't refer to, but many historians think was surely in the back of their minds, has to do with foreign policy, of all things. That during this time, the United States, in the wake of World War II, was playing a very major role in opposing colonialism, opposing communism, and trying to spread the gospel of liberty around the world."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And indeed, they rule unanimously that separate but equal facilities are inherently unequal. The Supreme Court in Brown says, well, whatever may have been the status of education as a civil right back then, back in the 19th century, by now it surely is a civil right, and therefore there can be no discrimination with regard to it. Then one other thing that changed that I think the Supreme Court doesn't refer to, but many historians think was surely in the back of their minds, has to do with foreign policy, of all things. That during this time, the United States, in the wake of World War II, was playing a very major role in opposing colonialism, opposing communism, and trying to spread the gospel of liberty around the world. And when we had segregation at home, this looked like rank hypocrisy. This was the Cold War period. These soldiers came home from fighting a form of racism in Europe, Nazi Germany, the Holocaust."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That during this time, the United States, in the wake of World War II, was playing a very major role in opposing colonialism, opposing communism, and trying to spread the gospel of liberty around the world. And when we had segregation at home, this looked like rank hypocrisy. This was the Cold War period. These soldiers came home from fighting a form of racism in Europe, Nazi Germany, the Holocaust. And when they came back, they came back to segregated America. And there are many stories that are painful about what their experiences were. But meanwhile, the United States is having this Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union was exploiting this inconsistency in what America said it was and what it was."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These soldiers came home from fighting a form of racism in Europe, Nazi Germany, the Holocaust. And when they came back, they came back to segregated America. And there are many stories that are painful about what their experiences were. But meanwhile, the United States is having this Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union was exploiting this inconsistency in what America said it was and what it was. And though the Supreme Court never said a word about that in the Brown cases, that was very much context for that decision. So what did it take for desegregation to really come about? Do you think we've achieved desegregation?"}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But meanwhile, the United States is having this Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union was exploiting this inconsistency in what America said it was and what it was. And though the Supreme Court never said a word about that in the Brown cases, that was very much context for that decision. So what did it take for desegregation to really come about? Do you think we've achieved desegregation? Yes and no. There was a long battle to implement Brown. And in fact, for the most part, Brown was not implemented fully, to the extent it ever was until the early 1970s, when the Supreme Court decided a case called Swan v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education in North Carolina, and sanctioned the use of busing."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Do you think we've achieved desegregation? Yes and no. There was a long battle to implement Brown. And in fact, for the most part, Brown was not implemented fully, to the extent it ever was until the early 1970s, when the Supreme Court decided a case called Swan v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education in North Carolina, and sanctioned the use of busing. This does not depend upon what social scientists might think about how people do in school. This is a much more fundamental principle of equality under the law, that our law must treat black and white the same, that for the government to draw racial distinctions is fundamentally unequal and unconstitutional and wrong and unjust. Fundamentally so, and not just as a matter of social science evidence."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And in fact, for the most part, Brown was not implemented fully, to the extent it ever was until the early 1970s, when the Supreme Court decided a case called Swan v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education in North Carolina, and sanctioned the use of busing. This does not depend upon what social scientists might think about how people do in school. This is a much more fundamental principle of equality under the law, that our law must treat black and white the same, that for the government to draw racial distinctions is fundamentally unequal and unconstitutional and wrong and unjust. Fundamentally so, and not just as a matter of social science evidence. I don't wanna sound despairing, but I think if anybody looks at our public schools today and many of our communities and our towns and cities and our counties, we have to acknowledge, honestly, that there's still a great deal of segregation. And there are many schools that are identifiably white or identifiably black, and now Latinos, Hispanics, large degree of segregation there also. And even voluntary desegregation efforts have been found by the Supreme Court a few years ago to be largely unconstitutional and illegal, and that's tragic."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Fundamentally so, and not just as a matter of social science evidence. I don't wanna sound despairing, but I think if anybody looks at our public schools today and many of our communities and our towns and cities and our counties, we have to acknowledge, honestly, that there's still a great deal of segregation. And there are many schools that are identifiably white or identifiably black, and now Latinos, Hispanics, large degree of segregation there also. And even voluntary desegregation efforts have been found by the Supreme Court a few years ago to be largely unconstitutional and illegal, and that's tragic. But that doesn't mean that Brown wasn't significant. I was born in the year Brown versus Board of Education. The America that I grew up in is a very different country."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And even voluntary desegregation efforts have been found by the Supreme Court a few years ago to be largely unconstitutional and illegal, and that's tragic. But that doesn't mean that Brown wasn't significant. I was born in the year Brown versus Board of Education. The America that I grew up in is a very different country. Then the one that preceded it, in spite of our flaws and our warts, no Brown versus Board of Education, no civil rights movement, I would say. And ultimately no desegregation of our society to the extent that we've accomplished it, and we have to a great degree, no Barack Obama. So I think Brown stands, as I said, as a distinct and so I think Brown stands, as I said, as a dividing point in America, but we can do better."}, {"video_title": "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The America that I grew up in is a very different country. Then the one that preceded it, in spite of our flaws and our warts, no Brown versus Board of Education, no civil rights movement, I would say. And ultimately no desegregation of our society to the extent that we've accomplished it, and we have to a great degree, no Barack Obama. So I think Brown stands, as I said, as a distinct and so I think Brown stands, as I said, as a dividing point in America, but we can do better. So we've learned that under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the decision in Brown versus Board of Education struck a major blow to the system of segregation. After World War II, amidst the ideological struggle of the Cold War, the Supreme Court overturned the precedent set in Plessy versus Ferguson and ruled that segregated education constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. To learn more about Brown versus Board, visit the National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution and Khan Academy's resources on US government and politics."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. To learn more about the First Amendment, I talked to two experts. Erwin Chemerinsky is the Jesse H. Chopra Distinguished Professor of Law and Dean of Berkeley Law. Michael McConnell is the Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Professor Chemerinsky, there's a lot going on in the First Amendment. Can you tell us a little bit more about why the framers chose to protect these rights in particular? The historical background of the First Amendment of the Constitution shows why the framers wanted to be sure that all of the liberties in the First Amendment were safeguarded."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Michael McConnell is the Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Professor Chemerinsky, there's a lot going on in the First Amendment. Can you tell us a little bit more about why the framers chose to protect these rights in particular? The historical background of the First Amendment of the Constitution shows why the framers wanted to be sure that all of the liberties in the First Amendment were safeguarded. Let's focus on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In England, there was, after the printing press developed, licensing, so that anyone who wanted to be able to publish anything needed to have a license from the government, such licensing was seen to be inconsistent with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, for that matter, freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry. Interesting, okay, so there are a lot of essential freedoms that are packed into this First Amendment, so much that it's almost amazing that we're gonna attempt to talk about them all in one video."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The historical background of the First Amendment of the Constitution shows why the framers wanted to be sure that all of the liberties in the First Amendment were safeguarded. Let's focus on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In England, there was, after the printing press developed, licensing, so that anyone who wanted to be able to publish anything needed to have a license from the government, such licensing was seen to be inconsistent with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, for that matter, freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry. Interesting, okay, so there are a lot of essential freedoms that are packed into this First Amendment, so much that it's almost amazing that we're gonna attempt to talk about them all in one video. But if we dial into freedom of speech, Professor McConnell, what is freedom of speech? Does that encompass some things and not others? Well, freedom of speech was actually less important to the framers than the freedom with which it was coupled, which is the freedom of the press."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Interesting, okay, so there are a lot of essential freedoms that are packed into this First Amendment, so much that it's almost amazing that we're gonna attempt to talk about them all in one video. But if we dial into freedom of speech, Professor McConnell, what is freedom of speech? Does that encompass some things and not others? Well, freedom of speech was actually less important to the framers than the freedom with which it was coupled, which is the freedom of the press. And the reason for this is that speech that can reach large audiences is much more important to the individual, but also dangerous to the state than mere speech. When you speak, only those people within hearing range can hear you, but when you are able to use Gutenberg's fantastic new technology to publish your sentiments and distribute them widely, maybe even over the entire country or across the Atlantic and reaching hundreds and thousands of people, now that is powerful. And no wonder, so you think about how the American Revolution was won, this required spreading the word, required gaining converts and telling people what their grievances were."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, freedom of speech was actually less important to the framers than the freedom with which it was coupled, which is the freedom of the press. And the reason for this is that speech that can reach large audiences is much more important to the individual, but also dangerous to the state than mere speech. When you speak, only those people within hearing range can hear you, but when you are able to use Gutenberg's fantastic new technology to publish your sentiments and distribute them widely, maybe even over the entire country or across the Atlantic and reaching hundreds and thousands of people, now that is powerful. And no wonder, so you think about how the American Revolution was won, this required spreading the word, required gaining converts and telling people what their grievances were. To a very great extent, this was done through the mechanism of the printing press. When you ask the question of what's freedom of speech, there's implicit within it the issue of what do we mean by speech? Ultimately, the answer to your question is that the First Amendment in protecting speech broadly safeguards a right to express one's ideas, but it's not absolute."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And no wonder, so you think about how the American Revolution was won, this required spreading the word, required gaining converts and telling people what their grievances were. To a very great extent, this was done through the mechanism of the printing press. When you ask the question of what's freedom of speech, there's implicit within it the issue of what do we mean by speech? Ultimately, the answer to your question is that the First Amendment in protecting speech broadly safeguards a right to express one's ideas, but it's not absolute. The government can restrict expression if there's a compelling interest. Interesting, can you say more about that? The Supreme Court always has been clear that freedom of speech is not absolute."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Ultimately, the answer to your question is that the First Amendment in protecting speech broadly safeguards a right to express one's ideas, but it's not absolute. The government can restrict expression if there's a compelling interest. Interesting, can you say more about that? The Supreme Court always has been clear that freedom of speech is not absolute. The court has said that there are certain categories of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. Incitement of illegal activity is a category of unprotected speech. The court has said this requires showing that the speech was directed at causing imminent illegal activity, and there was a substantial likelihood of imminent illegal activity."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Supreme Court always has been clear that freedom of speech is not absolute. The court has said that there are certain categories of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. Incitement of illegal activity is a category of unprotected speech. The court has said this requires showing that the speech was directed at causing imminent illegal activity, and there was a substantial likelihood of imminent illegal activity. Another example, obscenity is unprotected by the First Amendment. The court struggled for years with trying to define what is obscenity. Maybe the low point in that was when Justice Potter Stewart said, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The court has said this requires showing that the speech was directed at causing imminent illegal activity, and there was a substantial likelihood of imminent illegal activity. Another example, obscenity is unprotected by the First Amendment. The court struggled for years with trying to define what is obscenity. Maybe the low point in that was when Justice Potter Stewart said, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. There are also these categories of speech where the government can prohibit and even punish the expression. That's where most of the limitations on the freedom of speech and of the press come from, is in order to make sure that we don't hurt other people's rights through the use of our own. So an example of that, the government can prohibit speech, which incites violence against someone."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe the low point in that was when Justice Potter Stewart said, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. There are also these categories of speech where the government can prohibit and even punish the expression. That's where most of the limitations on the freedom of speech and of the press come from, is in order to make sure that we don't hurt other people's rights through the use of our own. So an example of that, the government can prohibit speech, which incites violence against someone. So if you're making a speech and calling upon the crowd to attack somebody's house or their person, that can be punished and prevented as an incitement to violence. And you can see how that follows from the logical idea of freedom of speech being a natural right and therefore limited by the rights of other people. So let's turn our attention toward the freedom of religion part of the First Amendment."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So an example of that, the government can prohibit speech, which incites violence against someone. So if you're making a speech and calling upon the crowd to attack somebody's house or their person, that can be punished and prevented as an incitement to violence. And you can see how that follows from the logical idea of freedom of speech being a natural right and therefore limited by the rights of other people. So let's turn our attention toward the freedom of religion part of the First Amendment. So the first thing that the amendment says is about establishment. So what does this establishment clause prevent? The language of the First Amendment is important."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's turn our attention toward the freedom of religion part of the First Amendment. So the first thing that the amendment says is about establishment. So what does this establishment clause prevent? The language of the First Amendment is important. It says that Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Since 1947, the Supreme Court has said that that also applies to state and local governments. And the Supreme Court has said this means that the government cannot act with the purpose of advancing religion."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The language of the First Amendment is important. It says that Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Since 1947, the Supreme Court has said that that also applies to state and local governments. And the Supreme Court has said this means that the government cannot act with the purpose of advancing religion. To the founders, this was a very clear legal concept, namely it was the established Church of England. In the statute books, in the law, the Church of England was referred to as, and I quote, the church by law established. And what did it mean to be established?"}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the Supreme Court has said this means that the government cannot act with the purpose of advancing religion. To the founders, this was a very clear legal concept, namely it was the established Church of England. In the statute books, in the law, the Church of England was referred to as, and I quote, the church by law established. And what did it mean to be established? First of all, it meant that the doctrines of the church, the 39 articles of faith of the Church of England were voted upon by parliament. So the doctrines, the liturgy, the text were all adopted by law. The established church was the government's church, and it could be used, and from time to time was used as an instrument of government or as an instrument of politics."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what did it mean to be established? First of all, it meant that the doctrines of the church, the 39 articles of faith of the Church of England were voted upon by parliament. So the doctrines, the liturgy, the text were all adopted by law. The established church was the government's church, and it could be used, and from time to time was used as an instrument of government or as an instrument of politics. And this is a way in which the government is able to have a powerful influence on the way in which values and opinions are inculcated. It's one of the most important ideas of the established church, especially in the 18th century, was to teach that there's actually a religious obligation to obey the law and to recognize the king as the supreme leader in matters of both church and state. And the framers' experience with this was extremely powerful."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The established church was the government's church, and it could be used, and from time to time was used as an instrument of government or as an instrument of politics. And this is a way in which the government is able to have a powerful influence on the way in which values and opinions are inculcated. It's one of the most important ideas of the established church, especially in the 18th century, was to teach that there's actually a religious obligation to obey the law and to recognize the king as the supreme leader in matters of both church and state. And the framers' experience with this was extremely powerful. That's because the framers were aware of the religious persecution that had gone on in other countries. They were aware of the evils that occur when the government becomes aligned with a particular religion. The principal reason why many of the colonists had come to these shores to begin with was to escape the oppressions of the established Church of England back home and to come to a place where they would be able to exercise the freedom of religion for themselves."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the framers' experience with this was extremely powerful. That's because the framers were aware of the religious persecution that had gone on in other countries. They were aware of the evils that occur when the government becomes aligned with a particular religion. The principal reason why many of the colonists had come to these shores to begin with was to escape the oppressions of the established Church of England back home and to come to a place where they would be able to exercise the freedom of religion for themselves. And the main opponents of the established church were not anti-Christian or anti-religious people. They were the most religious people, and their view was the government should stay out of our church, that we will decide what we believe for ourselves, we will control our own church, we will write our own liturgy, we'll decide what version of the Bible we're going to use, we'll choose our own ministers, thank you very much, government, stay out of it. Leave us free to practice our religion without having this kind of an establishment."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The principal reason why many of the colonists had come to these shores to begin with was to escape the oppressions of the established Church of England back home and to come to a place where they would be able to exercise the freedom of religion for themselves. And the main opponents of the established church were not anti-Christian or anti-religious people. They were the most religious people, and their view was the government should stay out of our church, that we will decide what we believe for ourselves, we will control our own church, we will write our own liturgy, we'll decide what version of the Bible we're going to use, we'll choose our own ministers, thank you very much, government, stay out of it. Leave us free to practice our religion without having this kind of an establishment. So for instance, a county in Kentucky required that the Ten Commandments be posted in all county buildings. The Supreme Court said, the Ten Commandments are religious scripture. There's no secular purpose for having the Ten Commandments posted in county buildings."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Leave us free to practice our religion without having this kind of an establishment. So for instance, a county in Kentucky required that the Ten Commandments be posted in all county buildings. The Supreme Court said, the Ten Commandments are religious scripture. There's no secular purpose for having the Ten Commandments posted in county buildings. The court declared it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has said the government can't act where the primary effect is to advance or to inhibit religion. So for example, there can't be prayer in public schools."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's no secular purpose for having the Ten Commandments posted in county buildings. The court declared it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has said the government can't act where the primary effect is to advance or to inhibit religion. So for example, there can't be prayer in public schools. Even a voluntary prayer in public schools is impermissible because the court has said that the primary effect of having prayer in public schools is to advance religion. The court has explained that children will inevitably feel pressured to participate. This coercion violates the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So for example, there can't be prayer in public schools. Even a voluntary prayer in public schools is impermissible because the court has said that the primary effect of having prayer in public schools is to advance religion. The court has explained that children will inevitably feel pressured to participate. This coercion violates the Constitution. So the First Amendment then prevents that kind of intermingling of the government and the church. This is I guess the key idea of separation between church and state. But it also says that the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This coercion violates the Constitution. So the First Amendment then prevents that kind of intermingling of the government and the church. This is I guess the key idea of separation between church and state. But it also says that the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So what does that mean? Free exercise of religion was the right to practice your own religion. It didn't keep the government from setting up a church, but it did keep the government from requiring you to attend that church, maybe even to contribute to the church, but also kept the government from preventing you from worshiping elsewhere."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it also says that the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So what does that mean? Free exercise of religion was the right to practice your own religion. It didn't keep the government from setting up a church, but it did keep the government from requiring you to attend that church, maybe even to contribute to the church, but also kept the government from preventing you from worshiping elsewhere. So the Establishment Clause by and large prevents the government from forcing people to participate in religion, and the Free Exercise Clause by and large prohibits the government from preventing people from practicing their religion. Those two things work together to enable everyone to worship God in accordance with their own conscience. Interesting."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It didn't keep the government from setting up a church, but it did keep the government from requiring you to attend that church, maybe even to contribute to the church, but also kept the government from preventing you from worshiping elsewhere. So the Establishment Clause by and large prevents the government from forcing people to participate in religion, and the Free Exercise Clause by and large prohibits the government from preventing people from practicing their religion. Those two things work together to enable everyone to worship God in accordance with their own conscience. Interesting. All right, so we mentioned a little bit about freedom of the press, but there are two other aspects of the First Amendment the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So what is included with the right to peaceably assemble? Are there any situations where that might be restricted?"}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Interesting. All right, so we mentioned a little bit about freedom of the press, but there are two other aspects of the First Amendment the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So what is included with the right to peaceably assemble? Are there any situations where that might be restricted? The Supreme Court has said that under freedom of speech, there's a right to use government property for speech purposes. This is also something that tells the freedom of assembly. And the Supreme Court has said that there's certain government properties that the government is required to make available for speech."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Are there any situations where that might be restricted? The Supreme Court has said that under freedom of speech, there's a right to use government property for speech purposes. This is also something that tells the freedom of assembly. And the Supreme Court has said that there's certain government properties that the government is required to make available for speech. Sidewalks in parks. There's other places where the government has more latitude to regulating speech. School facilities, evenings and weekends."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the Supreme Court has said that there's certain government properties that the government is required to make available for speech. Sidewalks in parks. There's other places where the government has more latitude to regulating speech. School facilities, evenings and weekends. There's places where the government can close entirely to speech. Military bases, areas outside prisons and jails. All of these cases could have been litigated under freedom of assembly."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "School facilities, evenings and weekends. There's places where the government can close entirely to speech. Military bases, areas outside prisons and jails. All of these cases could have been litigated under freedom of assembly. Some of the earlier cases explicitly mentioned freedom of assembly. But subsequent cases combine freedom of assembly into the protection of freedom of speech. I guess that makes sense."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "All of these cases could have been litigated under freedom of assembly. Some of the earlier cases explicitly mentioned freedom of assembly. But subsequent cases combine freedom of assembly into the protection of freedom of speech. I guess that makes sense. But what about something like a march, for example, that might say block traffic? That's perhaps a clear case when there is this tension between freedom of speech and assembly and say public safety if they're blocking say an ambulance. How do you resolve that tension?"}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I guess that makes sense. But what about something like a march, for example, that might say block traffic? That's perhaps a clear case when there is this tension between freedom of speech and assembly and say public safety if they're blocking say an ambulance. How do you resolve that tension? Sometime in roughly the 1970s, the court began using a quite different way of looking at the free speech question in which they said that laws which regulate or prohibit speech on the basis of the content of the speech are generally speaking unconstitutional, absent a very important governmental purpose. But the laws that are content neutral and regulate speech on the basis of its time, place or manner are permitted. So the basic idea here is that government has regulatory authority over speech, but not over what you say, but just over when you say it, where you say it, how you say it."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How do you resolve that tension? Sometime in roughly the 1970s, the court began using a quite different way of looking at the free speech question in which they said that laws which regulate or prohibit speech on the basis of the content of the speech are generally speaking unconstitutional, absent a very important governmental purpose. But the laws that are content neutral and regulate speech on the basis of its time, place or manner are permitted. So the basic idea here is that government has regulatory authority over speech, but not over what you say, but just over when you say it, where you say it, how you say it. All right, so the last thing in the First Amendment is the phrase petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Congress shall make no law abridging that freedom. What does this mean?"}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the basic idea here is that government has regulatory authority over speech, but not over what you say, but just over when you say it, where you say it, how you say it. All right, so the last thing in the First Amendment is the phrase petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Congress shall make no law abridging that freedom. What does this mean? How would one petition the government for a redress of grievances? There are of course many ways that people can petition government for redress of grievances. It's the ability to go and testify before a legislative body."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What does this mean? How would one petition the government for a redress of grievances? There are of course many ways that people can petition government for redress of grievances. It's the ability to go and testify before a legislative body. It's the ability to communicate with one's legislators or representatives about change. It's basically the ability to go to the government and ask it to change its policy. There are relatively few cases just about the right to petition government for redress of grievances."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's the ability to go and testify before a legislative body. It's the ability to communicate with one's legislators or representatives about change. It's basically the ability to go to the government and ask it to change its policy. There are relatively few cases just about the right to petition government for redress of grievances. Again, I think the reason for that is it's been so subsumed into the protection of freedom of speech. Everything one would do by way of petitioning government for redress of grievances is through speech and expression. And so the larger protection of speech and expression is meant that the court hasn't needed to focus so much on this particular right."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There are relatively few cases just about the right to petition government for redress of grievances. Again, I think the reason for that is it's been so subsumed into the protection of freedom of speech. Everything one would do by way of petitioning government for redress of grievances is through speech and expression. And so the larger protection of speech and expression is meant that the court hasn't needed to focus so much on this particular right. Is there anything that you feel people commonly misunderstand about the First Amendment? What it encompasses and what it does not? One of the most important misunderstandings about the First Amendment is people fail to realize that it, like all rights in the Constitution, apply only to the government."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the larger protection of speech and expression is meant that the court hasn't needed to focus so much on this particular right. Is there anything that you feel people commonly misunderstand about the First Amendment? What it encompasses and what it does not? One of the most important misunderstandings about the First Amendment is people fail to realize that it, like all rights in the Constitution, apply only to the government. Before I took my current job, I was a professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Duke is a private university. If while I was there, I had criticized the president of the university and he would order me fired, I could not have sued him or Duke University for violating my free speech rights."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One of the most important misunderstandings about the First Amendment is people fail to realize that it, like all rights in the Constitution, apply only to the government. Before I took my current job, I was a professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Duke is a private university. If while I was there, I had criticized the president of the university and he would order me fired, I could not have sued him or Duke University for violating my free speech rights. The First Amendment doesn't apply because it's a private university. But now I'm at the University of California, a state university. If I were to give a speech criticizing the president of the university or the chancellor of my campus, and I was to be fired for doing that, I could sue, I would sue, since this is a public university."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If while I was there, I had criticized the president of the university and he would order me fired, I could not have sued him or Duke University for violating my free speech rights. The First Amendment doesn't apply because it's a private university. But now I'm at the University of California, a state university. If I were to give a speech criticizing the president of the university or the chancellor of my campus, and I was to be fired for doing that, I could sue, I would sue, since this is a public university. The First Amendment applies. So I think the really dangerous thing in our times is that many people believe that they have some kind of a right not to hear opinions that they find offensive. Certainly, college campuses are filled with controversies of this sort."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If I were to give a speech criticizing the president of the university or the chancellor of my campus, and I was to be fired for doing that, I could sue, I would sue, since this is a public university. The First Amendment applies. So I think the really dangerous thing in our times is that many people believe that they have some kind of a right not to hear opinions that they find offensive. Certainly, college campuses are filled with controversies of this sort. This is something that our Constitution was designed to prevent. Free speech can inflict offense. Sometimes it can be hurtful and insulting."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Certainly, college campuses are filled with controversies of this sort. This is something that our Constitution was designed to prevent. Free speech can inflict offense. Sometimes it can be hurtful and insulting. But we as a nation have decided that it is better to put up with that so that we can all be free to express ourselves, to criticize the government, to urge the religious and scientific and artistic ideas that we have. And it's more important for all of us to be able to do that than it is to be able to retreat to safe spaces and require other people to shut up. So we've learned that the rights protected in the First Amendment derive from the historical context of restricted speech, press, and religion in Europe that the framers wished to avoid in the United States."}, {"video_title": "The First Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Sometimes it can be hurtful and insulting. But we as a nation have decided that it is better to put up with that so that we can all be free to express ourselves, to criticize the government, to urge the religious and scientific and artistic ideas that we have. And it's more important for all of us to be able to do that than it is to be able to retreat to safe spaces and require other people to shut up. So we've learned that the rights protected in the First Amendment derive from the historical context of restricted speech, press, and religion in Europe that the framers wished to avoid in the United States. Freedom of religion includes both the freedom not to participate in religion and the freedom to practice whichever religion you choose. Freedom of speech extends to all forms of freedom of expression, not just words. But there are limits to what counts as free speech."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "What were the Articles of Confederation and why did they need to get replaced? Well the Articles of Confederation were the first loose set of rules to govern these 13 states, but they were a mess. Essentially they allowed the states to be kind of their own little sovereign islands. So it was not a united nation, it was like an archipelago of islands. And the reason they were a mess, a couple of things. One, when they tried to repay the Revolutionary War soldiers, Congress in Washington with very little power had to go to the states and say, please give us some money so we can repay the soldiers. A lot of the states said, no thank you, we're not going to do that."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So it was not a united nation, it was like an archipelago of islands. And the reason they were a mess, a couple of things. One, when they tried to repay the Revolutionary War soldiers, Congress in Washington with very little power had to go to the states and say, please give us some money so we can repay the soldiers. A lot of the states said, no thank you, we're not going to do that. Then if you had a river that rolled through several different states and you wanted to have a trade agreement with the Spanish, for example, to use that river and trade along it, then the government didn't have one way to negotiate with the Spanish. Individual states had to do it and individual states had different interests. Some wanted to trade with the Spanish, some didn't want to trade at all."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "A lot of the states said, no thank you, we're not going to do that. Then if you had a river that rolled through several different states and you wanted to have a trade agreement with the Spanish, for example, to use that river and trade along it, then the government didn't have one way to negotiate with the Spanish. Individual states had to do it and individual states had different interests. Some wanted to trade with the Spanish, some didn't want to trade at all. And so you had to, how do you get those states to agree on something? There was also not universal coinage. The states all made their own money indifferently."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Some wanted to trade with the Spanish, some didn't want to trade at all. And so you had to, how do you get those states to agree on something? There was also not universal coinage. The states all made their own money indifferently. Well states might print a bunch of money in order to pay off some debts and then the money in one state is worth less than the money in another. Who regulates all of that? So commerce and industry and self-defense, there was no way to raise an army and pay for it."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "The states all made their own money indifferently. Well states might print a bunch of money in order to pay off some debts and then the money in one state is worth less than the money in another. Who regulates all of that? So commerce and industry and self-defense, there was no way to raise an army and pay for it. So the nation was crumbling before they got to Philadelphia in 1787. And to your point, in most countries the parts of the country are called things like provinces, but ours are states because they viewed themselves as individual countries. Absolutely."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So commerce and industry and self-defense, there was no way to raise an army and pay for it. So the nation was crumbling before they got to Philadelphia in 1787. And to your point, in most countries the parts of the country are called things like provinces, but ours are states because they viewed themselves as individual countries. Absolutely. And because, of course, the Articles of Confederation had been formed in the wake of this fear and the experience of the fear of a monarchy. So they wanted personal liberty and get the monarchy and national control, throw it all away because they believed that once you consolidate control in a national government of any kind, that it would trample liberty. And so after having fought a revolution for the purposes of liberating the people, you're not going to design a government that then stomps down on that liberty."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Absolutely. And because, of course, the Articles of Confederation had been formed in the wake of this fear and the experience of the fear of a monarchy. So they wanted personal liberty and get the monarchy and national control, throw it all away because they believed that once you consolidate control in a national government of any kind, that it would trample liberty. And so after having fought a revolution for the purposes of liberating the people, you're not going to design a government that then stomps down on that liberty. So they created something that gave the states lots of flexibility and then that flexibility allowed everybody to go off in their different directions. The Articles of Confederation may be too much independence for the individual states. So it seems like there was a consensus to fix it."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And so after having fought a revolution for the purposes of liberating the people, you're not going to design a government that then stomps down on that liberty. So they created something that gave the states lots of flexibility and then that flexibility allowed everybody to go off in their different directions. The Articles of Confederation may be too much independence for the individual states. So it seems like there was a consensus to fix it. What was the central debate when they decided to fix it? Well there was a consensus it had to be fixed. But when they got to Philadelphia, first of all, Rhode Island was invited and said no thank you."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So it seems like there was a consensus to fix it. What was the central debate when they decided to fix it? Well there was a consensus it had to be fixed. But when they got to Philadelphia, first of all, Rhode Island was invited and said no thank you. So 12 of the 13 states showed up. And they knew they wanted to centralize things. But what did that mean?"}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "But when they got to Philadelphia, first of all, Rhode Island was invited and said no thank you. So 12 of the 13 states showed up. And they knew they wanted to centralize things. But what did that mean? And did it mean one president or a council of presidents? Did it mean a strong Congress? How strong?"}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "But what did that mean? And did it mean one president or a council of presidents? Did it mean a strong Congress? How strong? Could they tell states what to do? Well if they did that, then they were acting just like George III had acted. So they had to iron out all of these issues to bring enough central control and enough quick movement of government that it could address national problems, but not so much that it trampled and stomped on that liberty."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "How strong? Could they tell states what to do? Well if they did that, then they were acting just like George III had acted. So they had to iron out all of these issues to bring enough central control and enough quick movement of government that it could address national problems, but not so much that it trampled and stomped on that liberty. And that was the constant debate, constantly trying to figure out how to keep the balance between giving enough national power but enough liberty. And that, some of the biggest fights included fights over slavery, North versus South, fights over big states versus small states. Who has representation in this national government and how do you figure that out?"}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So they had to iron out all of these issues to bring enough central control and enough quick movement of government that it could address national problems, but not so much that it trampled and stomped on that liberty. And that was the constant debate, constantly trying to figure out how to keep the balance between giving enough national power but enough liberty. And that, some of the biggest fights included fights over slavery, North versus South, fights over big states versus small states. Who has representation in this national government and how do you figure that out? And then of course the question of do we want a president? Will it be a single person? And how the dickens do we elect that person, which led us to the electoral college, which has had some bumpy history."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Who has representation in this national government and how do you figure that out? And then of course the question of do we want a president? Will it be a single person? And how the dickens do we elect that person, which led us to the electoral college, which has had some bumpy history. And where do you think we ended up if on a scale of zero to ten, if zero was a complete you know independent states and ten is a federal government that just controls everything, where do you think the U.S. Constitution ended up relative to the Articles of Confederation? Well in September of 1787, when it gets, September 17th, 1787, when the new constitution gets voted on, it is a stronger national document that has basically three main parts. One, the people are at the heart and center of it."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And how the dickens do we elect that person, which led us to the electoral college, which has had some bumpy history. And where do you think we ended up if on a scale of zero to ten, if zero was a complete you know independent states and ten is a federal government that just controls everything, where do you think the U.S. Constitution ended up relative to the Articles of Confederation? Well in September of 1787, when it gets, September 17th, 1787, when the new constitution gets voted on, it is a stronger national document that has basically three main parts. One, the people are at the heart and center of it. It is the people who are the representatives or at the center of the Republican government. The second thing is that the national government can tell states what to do in some instances. Those instances are circumscribed, but it can happen."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "One, the people are at the heart and center of it. It is the people who are the representatives or at the center of the Republican government. The second thing is that the national government can tell states what to do in some instances. Those instances are circumscribed, but it can happen. The states have to fall in line. That was very new. And there is this thing called a presidency, which is created single person, created really in the mold of George Washington."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Those instances are circumscribed, but it can happen. The states have to fall in line. That was very new. And there is this thing called a presidency, which is created single person, created really in the mold of George Washington. So it is a nationalized government, but with a strong attention to this question of protecting liberty through a balance of power system so that both the national government has checks and balances and also the relationship between the federal government and the state government has a number of checks and balances. So even though they went in a more centralized direction, they were constantly attentive to this idea of liberty, keeping it free in the states and not messing with them too much in their effort to get some kind of centralized control. So it sounds like they might have gone from a one or two at the Articles of Confederation to maybe a seven, six."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So Jeffrey, what does Article Two deal with? It deals with the executive power, the powers of the presidency, and it lays them out and it starts by saying the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. And today that seems somewhat common sense, that the executive power is vested in the president of the United States of America. Why did they have to, what's special about that? Well, when the Constitution was drafted, it wasn't obvious that we'd have a single executive. Under the Articles of Confederation, all the state governors had, some of them had plural executives. Alexander Hamilton at the Constitutional Convention was proposing a kind of monarchy, a president for life."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why did they have to, what's special about that? Well, when the Constitution was drafted, it wasn't obvious that we'd have a single executive. Under the Articles of Confederation, all the state governors had, some of them had plural executives. Alexander Hamilton at the Constitutional Convention was proposing a kind of monarchy, a president for life. So the idea of setting out limited powers for the presidency and specifying what they were, creating a president that was energetic enough to achieve common purposes, but restrained enough not to be a tyrant was a huge achievement of the Constitution. That under the Articles of Confederation, there wasn't a proper executive branch. It was really the president presided, so to speak, over Congress."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Alexander Hamilton at the Constitutional Convention was proposing a kind of monarchy, a president for life. So the idea of setting out limited powers for the presidency and specifying what they were, creating a president that was energetic enough to achieve common purposes, but restrained enough not to be a tyrant was a huge achievement of the Constitution. That under the Articles of Confederation, there wasn't a proper executive branch. It was really the president presided, so to speak, over Congress. That's right, and each, you needed unanimous consent to get anything done, which is why the Confederate Congress couldn't raise money to support the war efforts and couldn't raise taxes. So the framers came to Philadelphia to create an energetic executive, but one that was also restrained, and that's why the vesting power is so important. It basically says that all executive power is vested in the president, but that power is not unlimited."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It was really the president presided, so to speak, over Congress. That's right, and each, you needed unanimous consent to get anything done, which is why the Confederate Congress couldn't raise money to support the war efforts and couldn't raise taxes. So the framers came to Philadelphia to create an energetic executive, but one that was also restrained, and that's why the vesting power is so important. It basically says that all executive power is vested in the president, but that power is not unlimited. Now, people have disagreed about how much power the vesting power grants. Theodore Roosevelt had this stewardship theory that said the president can do anything that's not forbidden by the Constitution, in Article II. William Howard Taft, who came after Roosevelt, had the opposite theory, a kind of judicial theory of the president."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It basically says that all executive power is vested in the president, but that power is not unlimited. Now, people have disagreed about how much power the vesting power grants. Theodore Roosevelt had this stewardship theory that said the president can do anything that's not forbidden by the Constitution, in Article II. William Howard Taft, who came after Roosevelt, had the opposite theory, a kind of judicial theory of the president. He said the president can only do what isn't forbidden. So the question of whether Article II is the exclusive series of presidential powers or whether there are other implicit powers is a debate that continues to this day. Now, this will be fascinating."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "William Howard Taft, who came after Roosevelt, had the opposite theory, a kind of judicial theory of the president. He said the president can only do what isn't forbidden. So the question of whether Article II is the exclusive series of presidential powers or whether there are other implicit powers is a debate that continues to this day. Now, this will be fascinating. We'll go into much more depth in future videos, and just going through the rest of Section I, it looks like there's a lot of the mechanics of what does it mean to have a term of office, what the, how you become president. Is that essentially Section I? You see this first part, he shall hold his office during the term of four years, and together with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows, and then they kind of go into the electoral college system."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, this will be fascinating. We'll go into much more depth in future videos, and just going through the rest of Section I, it looks like there's a lot of the mechanics of what does it mean to have a term of office, what the, how you become president. Is that essentially Section I? You see this first part, he shall hold his office during the term of four years, and together with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows, and then they kind of go into the electoral college system. Exactly, and then there are a couple other requirements. No person except a natural-born citizen can be president, and we know that that term was subject to some debate during the recent presidential election, and then there's the provision that says that presidents have to be 35 years old. It's the most explicit part of the Constitution, and the point was to prevent aristocratic scions without a lot of experience from taking office."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You see this first part, he shall hold his office during the term of four years, and together with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows, and then they kind of go into the electoral college system. Exactly, and then there are a couple other requirements. No person except a natural-born citizen can be president, and we know that that term was subject to some debate during the recent presidential election, and then there's the provision that says that presidents have to be 35 years old. It's the most explicit part of the Constitution, and the point was to prevent aristocratic scions without a lot of experience from taking office. The framers were really concerned about having new monarchies and they wanted to make sure that presidents were seasoned enough, so that's why you can't be president unless you're 35. Fascinating, and as we go further, and I copied this text from your website, from the National Constitution Center, and why did you all highlight some of this text of Article Two in this yellow-orange color? Well, we're really thrilled by this website."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's the most explicit part of the Constitution, and the point was to prevent aristocratic scions without a lot of experience from taking office. The framers were really concerned about having new monarchies and they wanted to make sure that presidents were seasoned enough, so that's why you can't be president unless you're 35. Fascinating, and as we go further, and I copied this text from your website, from the National Constitution Center, and why did you all highlight some of this text of Article Two in this yellow-orange color? Well, we're really thrilled by this website. We're excited to be doing a series of videos with you, Saul, and it's the Interactive Constitution. Folks can find it at constitutioncenter.org. These are the main clauses where we commission the top liberal and conservative scholars to write about what they agreed and disagreed about these clauses."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, we're really thrilled by this website. We're excited to be doing a series of videos with you, Saul, and it's the Interactive Constitution. Folks can find it at constitutioncenter.org. These are the main clauses where we commission the top liberal and conservative scholars to write about what they agreed and disagreed about these clauses. So in Section One of Article Two, the main clause is the Vesting Clause, and that's the one to focus on. The other stuff, as you said, is basically just requirements of what you have to be in order to be president, and then we highlighted other important provisions in Sections Two, Three, and Four. Yeah, and in particular, this section on the electoral college system, this was superseded, I learned from your website, by the 12th Amendment because of what happened with Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These are the main clauses where we commission the top liberal and conservative scholars to write about what they agreed and disagreed about these clauses. So in Section One of Article Two, the main clause is the Vesting Clause, and that's the one to focus on. The other stuff, as you said, is basically just requirements of what you have to be in order to be president, and then we highlighted other important provisions in Sections Two, Three, and Four. Yeah, and in particular, this section on the electoral college system, this was superseded, I learned from your website, by the 12th Amendment because of what happened with Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. Yes, we know that from the musical Hamilton that the election of 1800 did not end well. It was actually a tie in the house, and so it went into the electoral college, and Aaron, rather a tie in the electoral college, it went to the house, and Alexander Hamilton cast his support for Jefferson over Burr, and Burr was so furious about that that he challenged Hamilton to do the duel that ultimately killed him, but the peculiarity of having the original system where the first place winner in the electoral college became president and the second place winner became vice president was so unwieldy that that provision of the Constitution was amended, and now, as we know, presidents and vice presidents run on a single ticket. Yeah, yeah, and then the rest of Section One, it kind of finishes off with, in the case of the removal of the president, his death, resignation, inability to discharge the power, so it talks about how Congress can provide for who should be president next."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, and in particular, this section on the electoral college system, this was superseded, I learned from your website, by the 12th Amendment because of what happened with Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. Yes, we know that from the musical Hamilton that the election of 1800 did not end well. It was actually a tie in the house, and so it went into the electoral college, and Aaron, rather a tie in the electoral college, it went to the house, and Alexander Hamilton cast his support for Jefferson over Burr, and Burr was so furious about that that he challenged Hamilton to do the duel that ultimately killed him, but the peculiarity of having the original system where the first place winner in the electoral college became president and the second place winner became vice president was so unwieldy that that provision of the Constitution was amended, and now, as we know, presidents and vice presidents run on a single ticket. Yeah, yeah, and then the rest of Section One, it kind of finishes off with, in the case of the removal of the president, his death, resignation, inability to discharge the power, so it talks about how Congress can provide for who should be president next. Exactly so, and there are statutes that provide that, and Congress has an elaborate rule of secession that it's created as empowered by this part of the Constitution. Yeah, and then the last two pieces here, it talks about just the compensation of the president. Cannot be increased or diminished during the period for which he shall be elected, maybe to prevent him from giving himself a raise or herself from giving herself a raise, and then the last is just the famous oath of office."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, yeah, and then the rest of Section One, it kind of finishes off with, in the case of the removal of the president, his death, resignation, inability to discharge the power, so it talks about how Congress can provide for who should be president next. Exactly so, and there are statutes that provide that, and Congress has an elaborate rule of secession that it's created as empowered by this part of the Constitution. Yeah, and then the last two pieces here, it talks about just the compensation of the president. Cannot be increased or diminished during the period for which he shall be elected, maybe to prevent him from giving himself a raise or herself from giving herself a raise, and then the last is just the famous oath of office. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States and will do to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Saul, you did a great job, although there was an extra do in there, and I'm pointing that out because you remember when Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath to President Obama, the fact that he slightly bungled it led Roberts, just to be safe, to re-administer the oath. I see."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Cannot be increased or diminished during the period for which he shall be elected, maybe to prevent him from giving himself a raise or herself from giving herself a raise, and then the last is just the famous oath of office. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States and will do to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Saul, you did a great job, although there was an extra do in there, and I'm pointing that out because you remember when Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath to President Obama, the fact that he slightly bungled it led Roberts, just to be safe, to re-administer the oath. I see. So if you want, I can do it again, and maybe you'll be president. Sounds good. So then we get into section two, which is I think maybe, it gets a little bit more involved."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I see. So if you want, I can do it again, and maybe you'll be president. Sounds good. So then we get into section two, which is I think maybe, it gets a little bit more involved. This first paragraph here, it says the president shall be the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and clearly they don't say all of the different forces of the United States because we didn't have an air force then. Yes. Or marines."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So then we get into section two, which is I think maybe, it gets a little bit more involved. This first paragraph here, it says the president shall be the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and clearly they don't say all of the different forces of the United States because we didn't have an air force then. Yes. Or marines. We sure didn't, but there was a concern about the king controlling the military. So the two main purposes of this commander-in-chief clause are first, total civilian control of the military, and second, the idea that there's just a single leader. So the military is subordinate to civilian and democratically accountable control, and unlike the Articles of Confederation, a single person gets to control all of this power so that you can have coordinated military force."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or marines. We sure didn't, but there was a concern about the king controlling the military. So the two main purposes of this commander-in-chief clause are first, total civilian control of the military, and second, the idea that there's just a single leader. So the military is subordinate to civilian and democratically accountable control, and unlike the Articles of Confederation, a single person gets to control all of this power so that you can have coordinated military force. And as simple and as clean as this statement seems to be, in future videos we'll discuss more of how this may or may not be in contention with the power given to Congress in Article I around the right to declare war. Exactly right. We know that the president in Section II has the power to, Congress has the power to declare war, and the question of what the president can do is contested, as you said."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the military is subordinate to civilian and democratically accountable control, and unlike the Articles of Confederation, a single person gets to control all of this power so that you can have coordinated military force. And as simple and as clean as this statement seems to be, in future videos we'll discuss more of how this may or may not be in contention with the power given to Congress in Article I around the right to declare war. Exactly right. We know that the president in Section II has the power to, Congress has the power to declare war, and the question of what the president can do is contested, as you said. We'll talk about it more later, but everyone agrees that the president has the ability to repel sudden attacks. At the same time, we haven't had a declared war since World War II, although there have been lots of military actions, and the question of how much independent power the president has to initiate military action is very hotly contested. Yeah, and in this next section, this talks about the power of the president to make treaties but with the advice and consent of the Senate, and it has to be approved, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We know that the president in Section II has the power to, Congress has the power to declare war, and the question of what the president can do is contested, as you said. We'll talk about it more later, but everyone agrees that the president has the ability to repel sudden attacks. At the same time, we haven't had a declared war since World War II, although there have been lots of military actions, and the question of how much independent power the president has to initiate military action is very hotly contested. Yeah, and in this next section, this talks about the power of the president to make treaties but with the advice and consent of the Senate, and it has to be approved, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur. Yes, so the treaty power is shared between the president and the Senate, and generally people think that the Senate can approve or disapprove, or maybe attach conditions or reservations to the treaty, but the president alone has the power to negotiate treaties, and that was a precedent set by George Washington, so the treaty power is shared. And there's a lot here, because it also talks about the power of the president to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States, so this is a pretty important sentence there. It sure is."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, and in this next section, this talks about the power of the president to make treaties but with the advice and consent of the Senate, and it has to be approved, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur. Yes, so the treaty power is shared between the president and the Senate, and generally people think that the Senate can approve or disapprove, or maybe attach conditions or reservations to the treaty, but the president alone has the power to negotiate treaties, and that was a precedent set by George Washington, so the treaty power is shared. And there's a lot here, because it also talks about the power of the president to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States, so this is a pretty important sentence there. It sure is. We know now from controversy over Supreme Court nominations that the so-called advice and consent clause is really important. The advice and consent clause is limited to high officers as opposed to inferior officers, because the clause says for inferior officers, Congress can vest the appointment in the president alone, in the courts of law, or the heads of the department, but for high-ranking officials like Supreme Court judges, the president can nominate, the Senate exercises advice and consent, and this is a shared power between the president and Congress. Yes, and just to make people familiar with the language, when they're talking about inferior officers, they're not making any judgment about those people's capability."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It sure is. We know now from controversy over Supreme Court nominations that the so-called advice and consent clause is really important. The advice and consent clause is limited to high officers as opposed to inferior officers, because the clause says for inferior officers, Congress can vest the appointment in the president alone, in the courts of law, or the heads of the department, but for high-ranking officials like Supreme Court judges, the president can nominate, the Senate exercises advice and consent, and this is a shared power between the president and Congress. Yes, and just to make people familiar with the language, when they're talking about inferior officers, they're not making any judgment about those people's capability. It's more they're talking about more junior, less senior officials in the government. That's an excellent point, but although it is a term of art, it's hugely important, and people have disputed about who counts as an inferior officer, because a lot hangs on it. If the officer is inferior, then the president alone doesn't get to appoint them."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yes, and just to make people familiar with the language, when they're talking about inferior officers, they're not making any judgment about those people's capability. It's more they're talking about more junior, less senior officials in the government. That's an excellent point, but although it is a term of art, it's hugely important, and people have disputed about who counts as an inferior officer, because a lot hangs on it. If the officer is inferior, then the president alone doesn't get to appoint them. And there's, and then they, sorry, and also the question of who the president can remove or fire without congressional approval is important and may hinge on that question as well. Right, and we'll talk more about it, but it seems like you need Senate consent for more of the getting people into their jobs, but being able to remove them as often, there's more power there for the president. Absolutely, although again, like most of these powers, they're contested, there are arguments on both sides throughout history, and the Supreme Court has both recognized the president's unitary authority to fire executive branch officials, but in other cases has said that Congress can impose certain conditions when the president can fire someone."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If the officer is inferior, then the president alone doesn't get to appoint them. And there's, and then they, sorry, and also the question of who the president can remove or fire without congressional approval is important and may hinge on that question as well. Right, and we'll talk more about it, but it seems like you need Senate consent for more of the getting people into their jobs, but being able to remove them as often, there's more power there for the president. Absolutely, although again, like most of these powers, they're contested, there are arguments on both sides throughout history, and the Supreme Court has both recognized the president's unitary authority to fire executive branch officials, but in other cases has said that Congress can impose certain conditions when the president can fire someone. And someone will talk about it more, but this next sentence really is also a really interesting one, is that look, when the Senate is in recess, the power shall have the president, the president shall have the power to fill up all vacancies, and it seems like it's a temporary filling of positions by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. That's exactly right, and the president's power to make recess appointments was just litigated before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court unanimously said that President Obama could not make certain appointments because Congress wasn't technically out of session. So the question of when the Senate is in recess is very contested, and the scope of that power is really important as well."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Absolutely, although again, like most of these powers, they're contested, there are arguments on both sides throughout history, and the Supreme Court has both recognized the president's unitary authority to fire executive branch officials, but in other cases has said that Congress can impose certain conditions when the president can fire someone. And someone will talk about it more, but this next sentence really is also a really interesting one, is that look, when the Senate is in recess, the power shall have the president, the president shall have the power to fill up all vacancies, and it seems like it's a temporary filling of positions by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. That's exactly right, and the president's power to make recess appointments was just litigated before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court unanimously said that President Obama could not make certain appointments because Congress wasn't technically out of session. So the question of when the Senate is in recess is very contested, and the scope of that power is really important as well. Yeah, and section three is, it kind of just says, hey, the president can get Congress together for the State of the Union, can address Congress, can kind of tell Congress what's on his or her mind. Yes. It does say that, and the State of the Union power is really important."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the question of when the Senate is in recess is very contested, and the scope of that power is really important as well. Yeah, and section three is, it kind of just says, hey, the president can get Congress together for the State of the Union, can address Congress, can kind of tell Congress what's on his or her mind. Yes. It does say that, and the State of the Union power is really important. You know, there's one other clause in section two that we just might wanna flag, and that's the take care clause. Sorry, that's in section three, and I know you're about to get to it. So we start with this ability to give Congress information about the State of the Union, the ability to convene both houses of Congress in cases of disagreement among them, but then you get to this really core power that he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It does say that, and the State of the Union power is really important. You know, there's one other clause in section two that we just might wanna flag, and that's the take care clause. Sorry, that's in section three, and I know you're about to get to it. So we start with this ability to give Congress information about the State of the Union, the ability to convene both houses of Congress in cases of disagreement among them, but then you get to this really core power that he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And why is that so important, that he takes care of the laws? I mean, isn't that what the executive should be doing? Absolutely, but there is a serious question."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So we start with this ability to give Congress information about the State of the Union, the ability to convene both houses of Congress in cases of disagreement among them, but then you get to this really core power that he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And why is that so important, that he takes care of the laws? I mean, isn't that what the executive should be doing? Absolutely, but there is a serious question. What happens if the president believes a law is unconstitutional? Then is it the kind of law that he has to execute? And President Thomas Jefferson said no, he refused to enforce the Sedition Acts, which basically allowed the government to punish people who criticized the president on the grounds that Jefferson believed that it was unconstitutional."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Absolutely, but there is a serious question. What happens if the president believes a law is unconstitutional? Then is it the kind of law that he has to execute? And President Thomas Jefferson said no, he refused to enforce the Sedition Acts, which basically allowed the government to punish people who criticized the president on the grounds that Jefferson believed that it was unconstitutional. More recently, we've had a big controversy over this clause when opponents of President Obama's executive orders about immigration have said that they're a violation of his power to take care that the laws are faithfully executed because according to opponents, Congress reached a different immigration policy. The Supreme Court ultimately refused to cleanly decide that because of the four-four split. And it didn't clearly rule on the question of the Take Care Clause and the immigration policy."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And President Thomas Jefferson said no, he refused to enforce the Sedition Acts, which basically allowed the government to punish people who criticized the president on the grounds that Jefferson believed that it was unconstitutional. More recently, we've had a big controversy over this clause when opponents of President Obama's executive orders about immigration have said that they're a violation of his power to take care that the laws are faithfully executed because according to opponents, Congress reached a different immigration policy. The Supreme Court ultimately refused to cleanly decide that because of the four-four split. And it didn't clearly rule on the question of the Take Care Clause and the immigration policy. Fascinating. And just to finish up here, and we'll go deeper in future videos as we go into section four, this really just talks about how the president or the vice president and all civil officers of the United States, how they might be removed from office. That's right, and we know from not so distant history that the only way that the president can be removed from office is by impeachment."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it didn't clearly rule on the question of the Take Care Clause and the immigration policy. Fascinating. And just to finish up here, and we'll go deeper in future videos as we go into section four, this really just talks about how the president or the vice president and all civil officers of the United States, how they might be removed from office. That's right, and we know from not so distant history that the only way that the president can be removed from office is by impeachment. A president is impeached by the House and has to be convicted by the Senate. Two presidents have been impeached in American history, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither has been convicted, so we've never actually had a president who's been removed from office through the impeachment clause."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's right, and we know from not so distant history that the only way that the president can be removed from office is by impeachment. A president is impeached by the House and has to be convicted by the Senate. Two presidents have been impeached in American history, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither has been convicted, so we've never actually had a president who's been removed from office through the impeachment clause. And a lot of times in popular language, impeachment, to be clear, impeachment is the accusation, and then you have to be held that, no, you actually did, those crimes happened, and that's what you're saying that the Senate is responsible for. That's right, you can be impeached but acquitted, and that's what happened to both Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson. So it's like being indicted, but then you go to trial and you're later acquitted."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional powers of the president   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Neither has been convicted, so we've never actually had a president who's been removed from office through the impeachment clause. And a lot of times in popular language, impeachment, to be clear, impeachment is the accusation, and then you have to be held that, no, you actually did, those crimes happened, and that's what you're saying that the Senate is responsible for. That's right, you can be impeached but acquitted, and that's what happened to both Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson. So it's like being indicted, but then you go to trial and you're later acquitted. You get to keep your office. Well, thanks so much, Jeffrey. This is a super valuable overview."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Today we're learning more about the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. In another video, we'll discuss the other clauses of the Fifth Amendment, those that deal with self-incrimination and due process of law. But in this video, we're concentrating on just the last few words of the Fifth Amendment, which forbid the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. To learn more about the takings clause, I sought out the help of two experts. Richard Epstein is the Lawrence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director of the Classical Liberal Institute at NYU Law. He's also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Eduardo Penalver is the Alan R. Tesler Professor and Dean of Cornell Law School."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more about the takings clause, I sought out the help of two experts. Richard Epstein is the Lawrence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director of the Classical Liberal Institute at NYU Law. He's also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Eduardo Penalver is the Alan R. Tesler Professor and Dean of Cornell Law School. So Professor Epstein, can you give us a little background? Just what is the takings clause? Well, there's a rule in constitutional law that the shorter the provision, the more difficult the interpretation."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Eduardo Penalver is the Alan R. Tesler Professor and Dean of Cornell Law School. So Professor Epstein, can you give us a little background? Just what is the takings clause? Well, there's a rule in constitutional law that the shorter the provision, the more difficult the interpretation. And this is a very short petition. It says, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. And the first thing to understand about the clause is that it's in the passive voice."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, there's a rule in constitutional law that the shorter the provision, the more difficult the interpretation. And this is a very short petition. It says, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. And the first thing to understand about the clause is that it's in the passive voice. So it doesn't tell you who's taking it. And early on, since this was part of the Bill of Rights, it was said to apply only to Congress and not to the states. And then after the Civil War, through the 14th Amendment, it was said to apply to the states."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the first thing to understand about the clause is that it's in the passive voice. So it doesn't tell you who's taking it. And early on, since this was part of the Bill of Rights, it was said to apply only to Congress and not to the states. And then after the Civil War, through the 14th Amendment, it was said to apply to the states. So now it applies to both the states and to the federal government. Many constitutions don't have an explicit property protection clause. But there's a fairly strong norm around compensating owners of private property when you essentially commandeer their property for public purposes."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then after the Civil War, through the 14th Amendment, it was said to apply to the states. So now it applies to both the states and to the federal government. Many constitutions don't have an explicit property protection clause. But there's a fairly strong norm around compensating owners of private property when you essentially commandeer their property for public purposes. And that seems to have been the motivation. I think the clearest reading of it is that it's a provision of the Constitution that makes clear that when the federal government takes your property or when the states take your property for some public use that they have to make you whole by giving you just compensation. Private property is a pretty comprehensive term."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But there's a fairly strong norm around compensating owners of private property when you essentially commandeer their property for public purposes. And that seems to have been the motivation. I think the clearest reading of it is that it's a provision of the Constitution that makes clear that when the federal government takes your property or when the states take your property for some public use that they have to make you whole by giving you just compensation. Private property is a pretty comprehensive term. Everybody understands that it means land and the things you build on land. They also understand that it tends to cover chattels, that is, things like books and baseballs that you happen to own and wild animals. But it also is much broader than that."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Private property is a pretty comprehensive term. Everybody understands that it means land and the things you build on land. They also understand that it tends to cover chattels, that is, things like books and baseballs that you happen to own and wild animals. But it also is much broader than that. It covers all sorts of intangible rights like patents, copyrights, trade secrets. These are very complicated. And generally speaking, the government doesn't have any obligation to create a patent."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it also is much broader than that. It covers all sorts of intangible rights like patents, copyrights, trade secrets. These are very complicated. And generally speaking, the government doesn't have any obligation to create a patent. But once it gives you the patent, it just can't take it from you because the patent after conferred is in fact now a property right. And then it also may or may not cover other kinds of intangibles like goodwill, which is the value associated with the business, knowing that your past customers may come back to you in the future. On the motives of the framers for including this, talk about things like the confiscation, mostly of personal property during the Revolutionary War by the British government, that that was possibly a motivation to make clear that if in future scenarios, if the government wanted to take your property, it would have to compensate you."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And generally speaking, the government doesn't have any obligation to create a patent. But once it gives you the patent, it just can't take it from you because the patent after conferred is in fact now a property right. And then it also may or may not cover other kinds of intangibles like goodwill, which is the value associated with the business, knowing that your past customers may come back to you in the future. On the motives of the framers for including this, talk about things like the confiscation, mostly of personal property during the Revolutionary War by the British government, that that was possibly a motivation to make clear that if in future scenarios, if the government wanted to take your property, it would have to compensate you. I think most historians don't think there was a real problem being addressed by this, a problem of uncompensated taking of property by colonial governments during that period or by the state governments during the Articles of Confederation. The framers wanted a system of what we call limited government. And so the takings clause essentially says is, yes, we need your land for a fort."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "On the motives of the framers for including this, talk about things like the confiscation, mostly of personal property during the Revolutionary War by the British government, that that was possibly a motivation to make clear that if in future scenarios, if the government wanted to take your property, it would have to compensate you. I think most historians don't think there was a real problem being addressed by this, a problem of uncompensated taking of property by colonial governments during that period or by the state governments during the Articles of Confederation. The framers wanted a system of what we call limited government. And so the takings clause essentially says is, yes, we need your land for a fort. And it's really very important. But if we're gonna take it and use it for a fort, that's a public use, we're gonna pay you compensation for the fair market value of the land before the fort was put on. And this is in order to make sure that you can't pick and choose your victims."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the takings clause essentially says is, yes, we need your land for a fort. And it's really very important. But if we're gonna take it and use it for a fort, that's a public use, we're gonna pay you compensation for the fair market value of the land before the fort was put on. And this is in order to make sure that you can't pick and choose your victims. And it's a way of assuring government regularity. That's the first. Second thing is more economic, less apparent at the time of the framing, but pretty apparent today, is if the government can take something and not pay you compensation, it's gonna overtake."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is in order to make sure that you can't pick and choose your victims. And it's a way of assuring government regularity. That's the first. Second thing is more economic, less apparent at the time of the framing, but pretty apparent today, is if the government can take something and not pay you compensation, it's gonna overtake. So your land is worth $100,000 as a farm. But if you're gonna use it for a fort, it's only worth $10,000. If you don't have to pay the $100,000, well, you may take it because you get $10,000 worth of gain."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Second thing is more economic, less apparent at the time of the framing, but pretty apparent today, is if the government can take something and not pay you compensation, it's gonna overtake. So your land is worth $100,000 as a farm. But if you're gonna use it for a fort, it's only worth $10,000. If you don't have to pay the $100,000, well, you may take it because you get $10,000 worth of gain. But if you have to pay the fair market value of the property interest taking, you won't do it. So essentially what it does is it makes sure, or at least improves the odds, that when the government does take property or does regulate, it will in fact improve overall social welfare. So you have a political function dealing with singling out, and you have an economic function dealing with the overall improvement of government behavior from an economic point of view."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you don't have to pay the $100,000, well, you may take it because you get $10,000 worth of gain. But if you have to pay the fair market value of the property interest taking, you won't do it. So essentially what it does is it makes sure, or at least improves the odds, that when the government does take property or does regulate, it will in fact improve overall social welfare. So you have a political function dealing with singling out, and you have an economic function dealing with the overall improvement of government behavior from an economic point of view. Okay, so say I had a piece of land and the government decided that they wanted it for some purpose. What would be the legal process for the government to go about acquiring my land? Well, the process for evident domain really varies by state, but typically there's some notice that the government gives you that it intends to take your property."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you have a political function dealing with singling out, and you have an economic function dealing with the overall improvement of government behavior from an economic point of view. Okay, so say I had a piece of land and the government decided that they wanted it for some purpose. What would be the legal process for the government to go about acquiring my land? Well, the process for evident domain really varies by state, but typically there's some notice that the government gives you that it intends to take your property. The government goes to court and gets an order of condemnation to take title to the property. And then often there's a requirement that the government bargain with you about the value of the property. It will tell you what it thinks the value is."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the process for evident domain really varies by state, but typically there's some notice that the government gives you that it intends to take your property. The government goes to court and gets an order of condemnation to take title to the property. And then often there's a requirement that the government bargain with you about the value of the property. It will tell you what it thinks the value is. The fair market value is the standard that we use for just compensation. That's the value that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller for the land. It doesn't include things like your sentimental value or anything like that."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It will tell you what it thinks the value is. The fair market value is the standard that we use for just compensation. That's the value that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller for the land. It doesn't include things like your sentimental value or anything like that. So it's just the market value of the property. There's some back and forth through this required bargaining. If the government and the property owner can't reach an agreement, then the government can go to court and get the court to specify the value of the property that we paid in compensation."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It doesn't include things like your sentimental value or anything like that. So it's just the market value of the property. There's some back and forth through this required bargaining. If the government and the property owner can't reach an agreement, then the government can go to court and get the court to specify the value of the property that we paid in compensation. And then the payment is made and the deed is transferred and the government becomes the owner of the property. Interesting. So the government has gone through this process to try to acquire my land."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If the government and the property owner can't reach an agreement, then the government can go to court and get the court to specify the value of the property that we paid in compensation. And then the payment is made and the deed is transferred and the government becomes the owner of the property. Interesting. So the government has gone through this process to try to acquire my land. What if I'm a real holdout and I just really don't want the government to get my land? What happens then? Well, you can litigate various pieces of this."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the government has gone through this process to try to acquire my land. What if I'm a real holdout and I just really don't want the government to get my land? What happens then? Well, you can litigate various pieces of this. And again, it depends a little bit on the state law. So some states put more procedural hurdles in the way of the government. Other states make it easier for the government."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, you can litigate various pieces of this. And again, it depends a little bit on the state law. So some states put more procedural hurdles in the way of the government. Other states make it easier for the government. But under the constitution, there are really only two ways you can resist the taking of your property through eminent domain. One is by arguing that the use that the government plans to make of your property doesn't count as a legitimate public use, because the clause says, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. And that public use language has been interpreted to be a limitation on the power of eminent domain."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Other states make it easier for the government. But under the constitution, there are really only two ways you can resist the taking of your property through eminent domain. One is by arguing that the use that the government plans to make of your property doesn't count as a legitimate public use, because the clause says, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. And that public use language has been interpreted to be a limitation on the power of eminent domain. And then you can argue, the second thing you can argue is that what the government is offering you in terms of just compensation is not adequate compensation. And you can litigate those through the courts and that can slow the process down quite a bit. Some states make it easier for the government by saying, well, the government can actually just take title while you litigate."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that public use language has been interpreted to be a limitation on the power of eminent domain. And then you can argue, the second thing you can argue is that what the government is offering you in terms of just compensation is not adequate compensation. And you can litigate those through the courts and that can slow the process down quite a bit. Some states make it easier for the government by saying, well, the government can actually just take title while you litigate. And others make you go, allow you to stop the condemnation process and litigate in advance. But there's often what's called a quick take procedure, which allows the government to move more quickly and put the litigation on the back end. The public use, if it's found, if the use is found not to be public, what you win is an actual prohibition on the taking itself, right?"}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Some states make it easier for the government by saying, well, the government can actually just take title while you litigate. And others make you go, allow you to stop the condemnation process and litigate in advance. But there's often what's called a quick take procedure, which allows the government to move more quickly and put the litigation on the back end. The public use, if it's found, if the use is found not to be public, what you win is an actual prohibition on the taking itself, right? You keep your property. If you win on the just compensation side, all you get is more money, they still take your property. So you mentioned public use."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The public use, if it's found, if the use is found not to be public, what you win is an actual prohibition on the taking itself, right? You keep your property. If you win on the just compensation side, all you get is more money, they still take your property. So you mentioned public use. What counts as public use? Well, under the current law, any use that generates a public benefit is really a public use. So the way the court has put it is anything the government, any purpose the government can pursue through any other means, it can pursue through eminent domain."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you mentioned public use. What counts as public use? Well, under the current law, any use that generates a public benefit is really a public use. So the way the court has put it is anything the government, any purpose the government can pursue through any other means, it can pursue through eminent domain. So if the government wants to create jobs or if the government wants to beautify or if the government wants to remove blight, all those things are things that we think it's legitimate for the government to try to do. If it can do those things, it can do them through the use of the eminent domain power. One thing that strikes me as interesting is just the fact that this clause is in the Fifth Amendment among things like double jeopardy or self-incrimination."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the way the court has put it is anything the government, any purpose the government can pursue through any other means, it can pursue through eminent domain. So if the government wants to create jobs or if the government wants to beautify or if the government wants to remove blight, all those things are things that we think it's legitimate for the government to try to do. If it can do those things, it can do them through the use of the eminent domain power. One thing that strikes me as interesting is just the fact that this clause is in the Fifth Amendment among things like double jeopardy or self-incrimination. So why do you think the framers included this particular clause here as opposed to elsewhere in the Bill of Rights? Well, that's a great question to which there's no obvious answer, but the one clause that is pretty close to it is the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment, which says, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. So if you start with the procedural stuff, somebody is gonna say, well, how do we know that the procedures aren't fair?"}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One thing that strikes me as interesting is just the fact that this clause is in the Fifth Amendment among things like double jeopardy or self-incrimination. So why do you think the framers included this particular clause here as opposed to elsewhere in the Bill of Rights? Well, that's a great question to which there's no obvious answer, but the one clause that is pretty close to it is the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment, which says, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. So if you start with the procedural stuff, somebody is gonna say, well, how do we know that the procedures aren't fair? And if it turns out that the government uses a set of procedures that don't give you adequate notice, you're always going to end up short on the amount of compensation that you're gonna require. So bad procedures tend to lead to bad outcomes, which tend to lead to property being taken at less than full market value. So what happens is there's therefore a very close linkage between the procedures used under the due process clause and the substantive protection that you have under takings."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if you start with the procedural stuff, somebody is gonna say, well, how do we know that the procedures aren't fair? And if it turns out that the government uses a set of procedures that don't give you adequate notice, you're always going to end up short on the amount of compensation that you're gonna require. So bad procedures tend to lead to bad outcomes, which tend to lead to property being taken at less than full market value. So what happens is there's therefore a very close linkage between the procedures used under the due process clause and the substantive protection that you have under takings. Any changes in the interpretation of the takings clause by the Supreme Court over time? Well, there's been a huge kind of switch up and down, and let me put it the following way. In the beginning, there wasn't much of anything that was done with respect to the takings clause."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what happens is there's therefore a very close linkage between the procedures used under the due process clause and the substantive protection that you have under takings. Any changes in the interpretation of the takings clause by the Supreme Court over time? Well, there's been a huge kind of switch up and down, and let me put it the following way. In the beginning, there wasn't much of anything that was done with respect to the takings clause. The first federal case to deal with it was called Barron against Baltimore in 1833 or so. And it just simply said that the clause does not allow for protection of Mr. Barron against the city of Baltimore because it only binds the federal government, it doesn't bind the state. After the Civil War, two things happen of real distinction."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the beginning, there wasn't much of anything that was done with respect to the takings clause. The first federal case to deal with it was called Barron against Baltimore in 1833 or so. And it just simply said that the clause does not allow for protection of Mr. Barron against the city of Baltimore because it only binds the federal government, it doesn't bind the state. After the Civil War, two things happen of real distinction. The first thing is you start getting comprehensive regulation of the railroads and the rates they can charge, and then public utilities and the rates that they can charge. And then in 1921, there's a case called Block v. Hirsch, and it's a very close five to four decision, but they sustain on the grounds that it's a wartime, a temporary two-year statute that limits the rents that can be charged in Washington, D.C. at the end of the First World War. One of the biggest changes in the interpretation of the takings clause was the extension of the takings clause to govern situations in which your property was not appropriated by the government."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "After the Civil War, two things happen of real distinction. The first thing is you start getting comprehensive regulation of the railroads and the rates they can charge, and then public utilities and the rates that they can charge. And then in 1921, there's a case called Block v. Hirsch, and it's a very close five to four decision, but they sustain on the grounds that it's a wartime, a temporary two-year statute that limits the rents that can be charged in Washington, D.C. at the end of the First World War. One of the biggest changes in the interpretation of the takings clause was the extension of the takings clause to govern situations in which your property was not appropriated by the government. So what we call the regulatory takings doctrine, which started with the case of Pennsylvania Coal versus Mahon in the 1920s, and then has now become much more, it was sort of dormant for a while, it's become much more active since the 1980s. That's a doctrine that says if the government regulates your use of property excessively, then the courts can treat that in effect as a confiscation of your property and require the payment of just compensation. That's maybe the most significant change in the interpretation of the clause in its history."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One of the biggest changes in the interpretation of the takings clause was the extension of the takings clause to govern situations in which your property was not appropriated by the government. So what we call the regulatory takings doctrine, which started with the case of Pennsylvania Coal versus Mahon in the 1920s, and then has now become much more, it was sort of dormant for a while, it's become much more active since the 1980s. That's a doctrine that says if the government regulates your use of property excessively, then the courts can treat that in effect as a confiscation of your property and require the payment of just compensation. That's maybe the most significant change in the interpretation of the clause in its history. So there continues to be controversy about the public use doctrine. Modern commentators, especially libertarians, want a very narrowly drawn account of public use and disagree with the breadth of the doctrine as I described it to you. And so there's a lot of activism around that."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's maybe the most significant change in the interpretation of the clause in its history. So there continues to be controversy about the public use doctrine. Modern commentators, especially libertarians, want a very narrowly drawn account of public use and disagree with the breadth of the doctrine as I described it to you. And so there's a lot of activism around that. There's been some state law that's been enacted to try to raise the floor there. The federal definition of public use is just a floor, and states can go beyond that and restrict the power of eminent domain more forcefully if they want to, and many have. So we've learned that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents both federal and state governments from taking private property for public use without just compensation."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment - takings clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so there's a lot of activism around that. There's been some state law that's been enacted to try to raise the floor there. The federal definition of public use is just a floor, and states can go beyond that and restrict the power of eminent domain more forcefully if they want to, and many have. So we've learned that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents both federal and state governments from taking private property for public use without just compensation. But there are a lot of questions about what counts as private property, public use, or just compensation. In recent years, debate over the Takings Clause has centered on whether government regulations about how a private individual can use land also constitute a form of confiscation and the extent of acceptable public uses for which the government can seize property. To learn more about the Fifth Amendment, visit the National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution and Khan Academy's resources on US government and politics."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "First of all, when the founders created the presidency, they left it kind of loose. They weren't exactly very specific about what a president would do. And they realized that the first president, George Washington, and this is why he was so important, was a man of virtue and that he, in his behavior, would set the precedence for the next president after him. That means the job is basically handed off by tradition from president to president. And the reason why they didn't know what a president should do is that there wasn't a notion of a, there wasn't a precedent for being a president. That's right. They knew what they didn't want."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "That means the job is basically handed off by tradition from president to president. And the reason why they didn't know what a president should do is that there wasn't a notion of a, there wasn't a precedent for being a president. That's right. They knew what they didn't want. They didn't want two things. They didn't want a king. They'd just gotten rid of one of those."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "They knew what they didn't want. They didn't want two things. They didn't want a king. They'd just gotten rid of one of those. They didn't want a king and they also didn't want somebody who was whipped around by mob rule. They didn't, so those were the two things they were trying to get between. But a president has a lot of room to move in between the two of them and they thought, well, put it in the hands of a virtuous American, George Washington, a good, first, virtuous American, and that person, through their virtue and character, would stay in the right place, would not become a king and would not give over to the mob."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "They'd just gotten rid of one of those. They didn't want a king and they also didn't want somebody who was whipped around by mob rule. They didn't, so those were the two things they were trying to get between. But a president has a lot of room to move in between the two of them and they thought, well, put it in the hands of a virtuous American, George Washington, a good, first, virtuous American, and that person, through their virtue and character, would stay in the right place, would not become a king and would not give over to the mob. But it also meant that it relied on the character of the person in the presidency. And so each president in subsequent years has taken shape in the presidency, both by what was determined by their predecessors, but also by what they could do in the job. And what's happened is a job that started out very weak in the American system has now become one where some people think of all of the entire of American government as the president."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "But a president has a lot of room to move in between the two of them and they thought, well, put it in the hands of a virtuous American, George Washington, a good, first, virtuous American, and that person, through their virtue and character, would stay in the right place, would not become a king and would not give over to the mob. But it also meant that it relied on the character of the person in the presidency. And so each president in subsequent years has taken shape in the presidency, both by what was determined by their predecessors, but also by what they could do in the job. And what's happened is a job that started out very weak in the American system has now become one where some people think of all of the entire of American government as the president. And that's not what the founders wanted. But how does that evolve? Because obviously the Constitution talks about the powers of the president."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And what's happened is a job that started out very weak in the American system has now become one where some people think of all of the entire of American government as the president. And that's not what the founders wanted. But how does that evolve? Because obviously the Constitution talks about the powers of the president. So how does it change so much over time? What happened was when they originally created the presidency, there was a debate. And the debate was we need somebody who can move quickly."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Because obviously the Constitution talks about the powers of the president. So how does it change so much over time? What happened was when they originally created the presidency, there was a debate. And the debate was we need somebody who can move quickly. We can't always be calling them into Congress because, of course, when America was started, it used to take several months or sometimes it would take weeks to get on a horse and get to Washington. So we need an executive who can move quickly. Well, what happened was in various wars, America needed to move quickly, and they needed one person to act on behalf of the entire union."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And the debate was we need somebody who can move quickly. We can't always be calling them into Congress because, of course, when America was started, it used to take several months or sometimes it would take weeks to get on a horse and get to Washington. So we need an executive who can move quickly. Well, what happened was in various wars, America needed to move quickly, and they needed one person to act on behalf of the entire union. Well, there's only one person who can do that. But as people wanted quick action, they handed over more power to the president. Congress, which used to fight with the president a lot during the Second World War and then on into our present day, has given up a lot of its power to the president, one of the key ones being the power to make war."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Well, what happened was in various wars, America needed to move quickly, and they needed one person to act on behalf of the entire union. Well, there's only one person who can do that. But as people wanted quick action, they handed over more power to the president. Congress, which used to fight with the president a lot during the Second World War and then on into our present day, has given up a lot of its power to the president, one of the key ones being the power to make war. Presidents can now go and make war. Well, that's not the original way it was arranged. And they've done it because there is a hunger in the country for quick action."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Congress, which used to fight with the president a lot during the Second World War and then on into our present day, has given up a lot of its power to the president, one of the key ones being the power to make war. Presidents can now go and make war. Well, that's not the original way it was arranged. And they've done it because there is a hunger in the country for quick action. But the problem and challenge of that is if you invest somebody in with power to do things quickly in an emergency, they hold on to that power and they don't let it go. And that means that they start doing things when it's not an emergency that is then not vetted by the American system. And that system has both the judiciary and the legislative, which are meant to hold back a president who's trying to act too quickly and do too much."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And they've done it because there is a hunger in the country for quick action. But the problem and challenge of that is if you invest somebody in with power to do things quickly in an emergency, they hold on to that power and they don't let it go. And that means that they start doing things when it's not an emergency that is then not vetted by the American system. And that system has both the judiciary and the legislative, which are meant to hold back a president who's trying to act too quickly and do too much. Just to go on this notion of making war as an example, there's clear powers that Congress has to approve a war, has the power of the purse. So how did this happen? Do they just do that as a ritual now?"}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And that system has both the judiciary and the legislative, which are meant to hold back a president who's trying to act too quickly and do too much. Just to go on this notion of making war as an example, there's clear powers that Congress has to approve a war, has the power of the purse. So how did this happen? Do they just do that as a ritual now? Well, basically there are times and Congress tries and makes attempts to try to pull power back from the president. The only times they've been successful after the Second World War is really after Watergate. The view was that the president had gotten too powerful, that President Nixon, who left office, had abused the office."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Do they just do that as a ritual now? Well, basically there are times and Congress tries and makes attempts to try to pull power back from the president. The only times they've been successful after the Second World War is really after Watergate. The view was that the president had gotten too powerful, that President Nixon, who left office, had abused the office. And so Congress tried to pull some power back. But again, political parties, which are now very close to the president, it used to be that political parties were not so powerful. If I'm a Republican in Congress and I want my Republican president to do well, I'm going to give him the power he wants because we're connected."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "The view was that the president had gotten too powerful, that President Nixon, who left office, had abused the office. And so Congress tried to pull some power back. But again, political parties, which are now very close to the president, it used to be that political parties were not so powerful. If I'm a Republican in Congress and I want my Republican president to do well, I'm going to give him the power he wants because we're connected. In the old days, if the president in the office was my party, well, that's nice. But I've got my own views and I'm in Congress and I'm going to do what I want. And so essentially a lot of these powers that have gone to the president have been handed over to him, not with a ceremony, but just by lack of a fight by members of Congress in withdrawing from their traditional role, as the founders wanted it, as the key actor in American government."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "If I'm a Republican in Congress and I want my Republican president to do well, I'm going to give him the power he wants because we're connected. In the old days, if the president in the office was my party, well, that's nice. But I've got my own views and I'm in Congress and I'm going to do what I want. And so essentially a lot of these powers that have gone to the president have been handed over to him, not with a ceremony, but just by lack of a fight by members of Congress in withdrawing from their traditional role, as the founders wanted it, as the key actor in American government. That's no longer the case. In America today, the president is the key actor. And then every time that happens, the next president or the next several presidents say, wait, you allowed that to happen to that person."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And so essentially a lot of these powers that have gone to the president have been handed over to him, not with a ceremony, but just by lack of a fight by members of Congress in withdrawing from their traditional role, as the founders wanted it, as the key actor in American government. That's no longer the case. In America today, the president is the key actor. And then every time that happens, the next president or the next several presidents say, wait, you allowed that to happen to that person. I should have that power. That's exactly right. It's almost like the powers conveyed to the new president like the furniture in the Oval Office."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And then every time that happens, the next president or the next several presidents say, wait, you allowed that to happen to that person. I should have that power. That's exactly right. It's almost like the powers conveyed to the new president like the furniture in the Oval Office. And so they think, well, this chair is pretty comfortable. I'm not going to get rid of that and sit in the old, you know, uncomfortable wooden chair. I want all the plush trappings."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "It's almost like the powers conveyed to the new president like the furniture in the Oval Office. And so they think, well, this chair is pretty comfortable. I'm not going to get rid of that and sit in the old, you know, uncomfortable wooden chair. I want all the plush trappings. And here's another reason. American politics has created a situation, and television has made this so much worse, where people run for office promising the sun, the moon and the stars. So they say, I can, Donald Trump, when he was running, said, I alone can fix it."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "I want all the plush trappings. And here's another reason. American politics has created a situation, and television has made this so much worse, where people run for office promising the sun, the moon and the stars. So they say, I can, Donald Trump, when he was running, said, I alone can fix it. That is not the way the country was originally founded, that one person could fix or unfix things. It was supposed to be a country with representatives of the entire country. But politics has created a system where, whether it's a Republican or Democrat, they run by saying, I can do anything."}, {"video_title": "Changes to the role of the presidency   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So they say, I can, Donald Trump, when he was running, said, I alone can fix it. That is not the way the country was originally founded, that one person could fix or unfix things. It was supposed to be a country with representatives of the entire country. But politics has created a system where, whether it's a Republican or Democrat, they run by saying, I can do anything. Well, that means when you get in the office, you want those quick powers that allow you to keep those campaign promises. And those quick powers are only quick if Congress and the courts aren't in the way. So politics and the way you run for office makes presidents want to have every possible power at their disposal."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And federalism, you can view as a pact between a national government and its states. It's referring to a government that has various layers, where you could have the national government, often known as the federal government, and then you have the states, and you're gonna have multiple states over here, and then you could have even further layers, and in the United States you indeed do, you have the local governments, and even within the local, you have city governments, you have county governments. The analogy that's often made is, originally, the federal idea was kind of like a layered cake, so this is my best attempt at drawing a quick layered cake, where you could view each layer as one of the layers of government. So when I cut open that cake, maybe right over here, this blue layer right over here, it's a blue-flavored cake, maybe it's an ice cream cake of some kind. That might be the federal government. Then this yellow, maybe it's mango-flavored, that would be the state government. And then you have your strawberry-flavored local government."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So when I cut open that cake, maybe right over here, this blue layer right over here, it's a blue-flavored cake, maybe it's an ice cream cake of some kind. That might be the federal government. Then this yellow, maybe it's mango-flavored, that would be the state government. And then you have your strawberry-flavored local government. That is one view of federalism, but it turns out in the United States, especially over the passage of time, this has gotten mixed up a little bit. So even though the United States might have started a little bit closer to something like this layered cake, today it is more of a marble cake, where the different layers and their powers are more mixed together. And so that's my attempt to drawing these, the mixing of these various powers."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then you have your strawberry-flavored local government. That is one view of federalism, but it turns out in the United States, especially over the passage of time, this has gotten mixed up a little bit. So even though the United States might have started a little bit closer to something like this layered cake, today it is more of a marble cake, where the different layers and their powers are more mixed together. And so that's my attempt to drawing these, the mixing of these various powers. And not only do they mix, they overlap, that different layers of our federal government, some have exclusive powers, which means they are the only layer that has them, while some of them, while sometimes there are concurrent powers, which means these are powers that multiple layers might actually have. Now to appreciate what these exclusive and concurrent powers are, here's a Venn diagram that shows some of them. So on the left-hand side right over here, you have your exclusive federal powers."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so that's my attempt to drawing these, the mixing of these various powers. And not only do they mix, they overlap, that different layers of our federal government, some have exclusive powers, which means they are the only layer that has them, while some of them, while sometimes there are concurrent powers, which means these are powers that multiple layers might actually have. Now to appreciate what these exclusive and concurrent powers are, here's a Venn diagram that shows some of them. So on the left-hand side right over here, you have your exclusive federal powers. So in the United States, only the federal government can coin money. You can't have money from Texas or California. Only the federal government can declare war, which is related to the idea of conducting foreign affairs, which once again, only the federal government can do."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So on the left-hand side right over here, you have your exclusive federal powers. So in the United States, only the federal government can coin money. You can't have money from Texas or California. Only the federal government can declare war, which is related to the idea of conducting foreign affairs, which once again, only the federal government can do. That's also related to raising armies. Once again, only the federal government. Rules of naturalization."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Only the federal government can declare war, which is related to the idea of conducting foreign affairs, which once again, only the federal government can do. That's also related to raising armies. Once again, only the federal government. Rules of naturalization. Who becomes an immigrant? Who gets a green card? Who becomes a citizen?"}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Rules of naturalization. Who becomes an immigrant? Who gets a green card? Who becomes a citizen? All determined by the federal government, not by the states. And the federal government regulates not just foreign affairs, but foreign commerce, trade agreements, and how is trade done? They're regulating between the states."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Who becomes a citizen? All determined by the federal government, not by the states. And the federal government regulates not just foreign affairs, but foreign commerce, trade agreements, and how is trade done? They're regulating between the states. Now exclusive powers to the states, they conduct elections. You might say, wait, wait, wait, hold on a second. Well, aren't there federal elections?"}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They're regulating between the states. Now exclusive powers to the states, they conduct elections. You might say, wait, wait, wait, hold on a second. Well, aren't there federal elections? Well, it turns out even for say election for president, the elections are conducted by the state government. Remember, we have the electoral college. They want to figure out who should that state's electors vote for."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, aren't there federal elections? Well, it turns out even for say election for president, the elections are conducted by the state government. Remember, we have the electoral college. They want to figure out who should that state's electors vote for. Establishing local governments. What are the counties? What are the various jurisdictions within a state?"}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They want to figure out who should that state's electors vote for. Establishing local governments. What are the counties? What are the various jurisdictions within a state? Similarly, intrastate commerce. That's regulated by the state. What about the commerce that happens within the state?"}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What are the various jurisdictions within a state? Similarly, intrastate commerce. That's regulated by the state. What about the commerce that happens within the state? And then the Constitution allows the states to be the main power in ratifying constitutional amendments. The Senate and House can propose amendments, but 3 4ths of the states have to vote to ratify constitutional amendments. Now what we see in the middle of this Venn diagram, these are concurrent powers, which means that they are common to both federal and state governments."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What about the commerce that happens within the state? And then the Constitution allows the states to be the main power in ratifying constitutional amendments. The Senate and House can propose amendments, but 3 4ths of the states have to vote to ratify constitutional amendments. Now what we see in the middle of this Venn diagram, these are concurrent powers, which means that they are common to both federal and state governments. You can have federal taxes and you can have state taxes. In fact, most of us have both. There are federal laws and there are state laws."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now what we see in the middle of this Venn diagram, these are concurrent powers, which means that they are common to both federal and state governments. You can have federal taxes and you can have state taxes. In fact, most of us have both. There are federal laws and there are state laws. Similarly, there's federal law enforcement. You can think of the FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation. And of course, you have state police and local police."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There are federal laws and there are state laws. Similarly, there's federal law enforcement. You can think of the FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation. And of course, you have state police and local police. The chartering of banks. Eminent domain, which we might do another video on in the future, but this is the idea that a government can view taking land as the interest of the broader good in order to put down power lines or a highway and ideally compensate the people that it takes from if it's for the greater good. Establishing courts."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And of course, you have state police and local police. The chartering of banks. Eminent domain, which we might do another video on in the future, but this is the idea that a government can view taking land as the interest of the broader good in order to put down power lines or a highway and ideally compensate the people that it takes from if it's for the greater good. Establishing courts. You have a federal court system and a state court system, which we'll talk more about in future videos. And borrowing money. They both can issue bonds if they wanna have a large project or to finance their deficit."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Establishing courts. You have a federal court system and a state court system, which we'll talk more about in future videos. And borrowing money. They both can issue bonds if they wanna have a large project or to finance their deficit. All of these things are concurrent powers. Now this list is not exhaustive for any one of the three, for the exclusive federal powers, the concurrent powers, I'll do this dot, dot, dot here, and the exclusive state powers. And one thing that you will see, even certain exclusive state powers, so for example, education is for the most part considered an exclusive state power, but then you might say, hold on a second, isn't there a federal department of education?"}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They both can issue bonds if they wanna have a large project or to finance their deficit. All of these things are concurrent powers. Now this list is not exhaustive for any one of the three, for the exclusive federal powers, the concurrent powers, I'll do this dot, dot, dot here, and the exclusive state powers. And one thing that you will see, even certain exclusive state powers, so for example, education is for the most part considered an exclusive state power, but then you might say, hold on a second, isn't there a federal department of education? I'll do that over here. And the way, and this is a good example of how the federal government, even when something might be more of a exclusive state power where the federal government can still influence it. And they do that through grants."}, {"video_title": "Federalism in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And one thing that you will see, even certain exclusive state powers, so for example, education is for the most part considered an exclusive state power, but then you might say, hold on a second, isn't there a federal department of education? I'll do that over here. And the way, and this is a good example of how the federal government, even when something might be more of a exclusive state power where the federal government can still influence it. And they do that through grants. So even though the states and local governments might run the schools, the federal government might say, hey, if you do X, Y, and Z, which we want you to do, then we will give you more funding for your schools. And so that might be motivation for the states to listen to the federal government. So I will leave you there."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "How has the evolution of media affected the evolution of political discourse? At the beginning of our country, the editors of the rival newspapers, there was no middle of the road newspaper. You were either for one side or the other. You were either a Federalist or you were with the Jeffersonian Democrats, Democratic Republicans as they called themselves. And the editors were at each other's throats so violently, they would sometimes get in fights in the street and knock each other down. So it was, and you had lawmakers who were supposed to be men of virtue, it was all men in those days, would be leaking documents. Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary, and Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, would leak documents to their favorite papers in order to attack the other."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "You were either a Federalist or you were with the Jeffersonian Democrats, Democratic Republicans as they called themselves. And the editors were at each other's throats so violently, they would sometimes get in fights in the street and knock each other down. So it was, and you had lawmakers who were supposed to be men of virtue, it was all men in those days, would be leaking documents. Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary, and Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, would leak documents to their favorite papers in order to attack the other. And eventually George Washington had to come in and say, knock it off, fellas, because this isn't good for the country. So the bitterness carried out in the press was with us from the founding. What changed over time is that it became in the interest of the newspapers particularly to appeal to a larger audience."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary, and Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, would leak documents to their favorite papers in order to attack the other. And eventually George Washington had to come in and say, knock it off, fellas, because this isn't good for the country. So the bitterness carried out in the press was with us from the founding. What changed over time is that it became in the interest of the newspapers particularly to appeal to a larger audience. That means you didn't want just the left or the right, you wanted both. And so that created a tradition along with a few other things where there was an attempt to give just the facts, a kind of middle of the road perspective. We are changing from that now where the economics of covering the news and the digital, the change where you now can have anybody speaking and gaining access to the public has created a situation where you have a more partisan press now."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "What changed over time is that it became in the interest of the newspapers particularly to appeal to a larger audience. That means you didn't want just the left or the right, you wanted both. And so that created a tradition along with a few other things where there was an attempt to give just the facts, a kind of middle of the road perspective. We are changing from that now where the economics of covering the news and the digital, the change where you now can have anybody speaking and gaining access to the public has created a situation where you have a more partisan press now. And we're in the middle of trying to figure out where that's going next. So this is interesting because a lot of people when they talk about, oh, well now it's getting polarized and partisan, you know, the good old days when you got the truth, the wisdom from Walter Cronkite or whoever. But what you're talking about is maybe what's going on now is a little bit of a reversion back to where we started."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "We are changing from that now where the economics of covering the news and the digital, the change where you now can have anybody speaking and gaining access to the public has created a situation where you have a more partisan press now. And we're in the middle of trying to figure out where that's going next. So this is interesting because a lot of people when they talk about, oh, well now it's getting polarized and partisan, you know, the good old days when you got the truth, the wisdom from Walter Cronkite or whoever. But what you're talking about is maybe what's going on now is a little bit of a reversion back to where we started. That's right. In terms of the partisanship of the press, it is a reversion towards the early days of America. And in terms of the partisanship of the individual members of Congress or of the White House, what is a little bit different is that the call to virtue, which would snap people out of their partisanship, is still up for grabs."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "But what you're talking about is maybe what's going on now is a little bit of a reversion back to where we started. That's right. In terms of the partisanship of the press, it is a reversion towards the early days of America. And in terms of the partisanship of the individual members of Congress or of the White House, what is a little bit different is that the call to virtue, which would snap people out of their partisanship, is still up for grabs. Whether the original, the founders when they fought like cats and dogs during the early years of the administrations, I mean, Thomas Jefferson was best friends with John Adams and essentially then hired a newspaper writer to undermine Adams when he was president. I mean, this was a very dirty pool. The argument they were making though was our country is new and what is at stake is the very survival of the American experiment."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And in terms of the partisanship of the individual members of Congress or of the White House, what is a little bit different is that the call to virtue, which would snap people out of their partisanship, is still up for grabs. Whether the original, the founders when they fought like cats and dogs during the early years of the administrations, I mean, Thomas Jefferson was best friends with John Adams and essentially then hired a newspaper writer to undermine Adams when he was president. I mean, this was a very dirty pool. The argument they were making though was our country is new and what is at stake is the very survival of the American experiment. And so they were fighting for real stakes. They weren't just trying to primarily keep power. They were really trying to make this flower bloom that they had just planted."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "The argument they were making though was our country is new and what is at stake is the very survival of the American experiment. And so they were fighting for real stakes. They weren't just trying to primarily keep power. They were really trying to make this flower bloom that they had just planted. So now the question is what role does virtue play in the American experience to pull people away from their partisanship, to make them work together for common interests? And what is that shared area of common interest? What pulls them away from what the founders knew people would behave like dogs sometimes, but they thought they could pull away if they thought about the common interest."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "They were really trying to make this flower bloom that they had just planted. So now the question is what role does virtue play in the American experience to pull people away from their partisanship, to make them work together for common interests? And what is that shared area of common interest? What pulls them away from what the founders knew people would behave like dogs sometimes, but they thought they could pull away if they thought about the common interest. Well is that pull still there? So there's a lot of talk these days about the polarization of the media or the polarization of politics in general. How much of it do you think is due to things like social media or do you think it was inevitable?"}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "What pulls them away from what the founders knew people would behave like dogs sometimes, but they thought they could pull away if they thought about the common interest. Well is that pull still there? So there's a lot of talk these days about the polarization of the media or the polarization of politics in general. How much of it do you think is due to things like social media or do you think it was inevitable? Well we've always had polarization in American politics, but there was a dose of something else which was a call to a higher American ideal. And also voters would vote on people based on their virtue, on their larger than life statesmanship which was not partisan. So you had to keep a balance."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "How much of it do you think is due to things like social media or do you think it was inevitable? Well we've always had polarization in American politics, but there was a dose of something else which was a call to a higher American ideal. And also voters would vote on people based on their virtue, on their larger than life statesmanship which was not partisan. So you had to keep a balance. If you were being highly partisan, you kind of did it in quiet. What's changed now with social media and also with the flood of money in politics is that it has encouraged people to be more and more partisan. The louder and hotter I talk on a specific issue, the more money I'm going to be able to raise, the more interest groups are going to like me, and the more clicks I'm going to get because I'm the one making the most flamboyant noise."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So you had to keep a balance. If you were being highly partisan, you kind of did it in quiet. What's changed now with social media and also with the flood of money in politics is that it has encouraged people to be more and more partisan. The louder and hotter I talk on a specific issue, the more money I'm going to be able to raise, the more interest groups are going to like me, and the more clicks I'm going to get because I'm the one making the most flamboyant noise. The problem is that means the arguments are always containing flamboyant noise. And the people who want a calm, steady, measured conversation, well they're not getting read on social media. They're not in charge of the interest groups that pay millions and millions of dollars."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "The louder and hotter I talk on a specific issue, the more money I'm going to be able to raise, the more interest groups are going to like me, and the more clicks I'm going to get because I'm the one making the most flamboyant noise. The problem is that means the arguments are always containing flamboyant noise. And the people who want a calm, steady, measured conversation, well they're not getting read on social media. They're not in charge of the interest groups that pay millions and millions of dollars. So the system encourages people to stay apart. And that's one of the biggest challenges. Secretary of Defense James Mattis says it may be the greatest threat to American democracy, that polarization."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "They're not in charge of the interest groups that pay millions and millions of dollars. So the system encourages people to stay apart. And that's one of the biggest challenges. Secretary of Defense James Mattis says it may be the greatest threat to American democracy, that polarization. And do you see a way of this getting resolved? Or does it get worse? Does it get better?"}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Secretary of Defense James Mattis says it may be the greatest threat to American democracy, that polarization. And do you see a way of this getting resolved? Or does it get worse? Does it get better? There have been periods of American history where we have been the split. Obviously the Civil War was a period of great rending in the American fabric. What changed it was an actual conflict."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Does it get better? There have been periods of American history where we have been the split. Obviously the Civil War was a period of great rending in the American fabric. What changed it was an actual conflict. And so that, God forbid, would be one way to do it. Another would be if there was a threat to America from outside its borders and people would feel an acute sense of national pride and patriotism. But other than that, there doesn't appear to be at the moment a quick fix for what is a complicated problem for why the two parties have gotten into a kind of inescapable fight that they can't seem to get themselves out of."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "What changed it was an actual conflict. And so that, God forbid, would be one way to do it. Another would be if there was a threat to America from outside its borders and people would feel an acute sense of national pride and patriotism. But other than that, there doesn't appear to be at the moment a quick fix for what is a complicated problem for why the two parties have gotten into a kind of inescapable fight that they can't seem to get themselves out of. It's like we need a shock to remind ourselves how much commonality there is so all of the polarizing quibbling kind of goes away or at least gets covered up a little bit. Big changes in American history usually happen from a shock and it's what breaks people out of their behavior and also which tells a lot of the people in the rest of the country who don't participate in presidential elections and don't participate in congressional elections. It reminds them that something real is at stake."}, {"video_title": "The media and partisanship   Political partecipation   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "But other than that, there doesn't appear to be at the moment a quick fix for what is a complicated problem for why the two parties have gotten into a kind of inescapable fight that they can't seem to get themselves out of. It's like we need a shock to remind ourselves how much commonality there is so all of the polarizing quibbling kind of goes away or at least gets covered up a little bit. Big changes in American history usually happen from a shock and it's what breaks people out of their behavior and also which tells a lot of the people in the rest of the country who don't participate in presidential elections and don't participate in congressional elections. It reminds them that something real is at stake. And there is a vast group of Americans who really want solutions in the middle, who don't care about the bickering and the ideology. But a lot of them don't participate in politics. And so the kind of shock that would make people behave who are partisans is also the kind of shock that might draw in people who were just apathetic and not participating in the political system."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And we also talk about, in that video on linkage institutions, how political parties are involved in voter mobilization, which is a fancy way of saying, hey, getting people to vote, getting people energized about the election, to actually get to the polls, sometimes going as far as getting buses, transporting them to the polling stations, and campaign management, campaign management. And one thing that is really interesting to appreciate, and it's really the focus of this video, is that both of these things have evolved over time. So for example, George Washington, the first president of the United States, he was not affiliated with any party, and our first two presidential elections had no party association. But as soon as we get to the election of 1796, we start to see the development of faction. You have Hamilton on one side becomes head of the Federalist Party, and on the other side, headed by Madison, you have the Democratic-Republican Party. Democratic-Republican. And there is a nice irony to this, because it was exactly those two gentlemen that not too far before 1796, if we go to the late 1780s, in their attempt to get the Constitution ratified in the Federalist Papers, they argue against faction, how faction can be bad for a government, for a nation."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But as soon as we get to the election of 1796, we start to see the development of faction. You have Hamilton on one side becomes head of the Federalist Party, and on the other side, headed by Madison, you have the Democratic-Republican Party. Democratic-Republican. And there is a nice irony to this, because it was exactly those two gentlemen that not too far before 1796, if we go to the late 1780s, in their attempt to get the Constitution ratified in the Federalist Papers, they argue against faction, how faction can be bad for a government, for a nation. But they were the ones that led the split into faction and the split into party. And from that time, for over 100 years, all the way until we get to the early 1900s, early 1900s, you have some situations where the party leadership might pick candidates, and some situation where the party members pick candidates in conventions. And so you have party leadership, leadership slash members, we could say handpick, handpick candidates."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there is a nice irony to this, because it was exactly those two gentlemen that not too far before 1796, if we go to the late 1780s, in their attempt to get the Constitution ratified in the Federalist Papers, they argue against faction, how faction can be bad for a government, for a nation. But they were the ones that led the split into faction and the split into party. And from that time, for over 100 years, all the way until we get to the early 1900s, early 1900s, you have some situations where the party leadership might pick candidates, and some situation where the party members pick candidates in conventions. And so you have party leadership, leadership slash members, we could say handpick, handpick candidates. So this part of the process was not so broadly democratic, especially as we get to the second half of the 1800s. You have very strong party leaders, often called party bosses, who almost had the individual power to pick candidates to represent one party or another. But in the early 1900s, there was a movement to say, hey, you know what, this is not so democratic to handpick the candidates that people have to choose from."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so you have party leadership, leadership slash members, we could say handpick, handpick candidates. So this part of the process was not so broadly democratic, especially as we get to the second half of the 1800s. You have very strong party leaders, often called party bosses, who almost had the individual power to pick candidates to represent one party or another. But in the early 1900s, there was a movement to say, hey, you know what, this is not so democratic to handpick the candidates that people have to choose from. And so this is when you start to have the direct primary system, where to choose the candidates that represent one party or another, you will hold elections. And those elections could be closed primaries, where you have to be a registered Republican to vote for who represents Republican Party or registered Democrat to see who represents the Democratic Party. But they also have open primaries, where anyone could vote in the Democratic primary, or anyone could vote in the Republican primary."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But in the early 1900s, there was a movement to say, hey, you know what, this is not so democratic to handpick the candidates that people have to choose from. And so this is when you start to have the direct primary system, where to choose the candidates that represent one party or another, you will hold elections. And those elections could be closed primaries, where you have to be a registered Republican to vote for who represents Republican Party or registered Democrat to see who represents the Democratic Party. But they also have open primaries, where anyone could vote in the Democratic primary, or anyone could vote in the Republican primary. And this is happening to this day. Now, this change that has happened over roughly the last 100 years, you could imagine this has changed the power dynamic between the parties and the candidates. For this first over 100 years, the party is where a lot of the power was."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But they also have open primaries, where anyone could vote in the Democratic primary, or anyone could vote in the Republican primary. And this is happening to this day. Now, this change that has happened over roughly the last 100 years, you could imagine this has changed the power dynamic between the parties and the candidates. For this first over 100 years, the party is where a lot of the power was. But once you start having the direct primary, it becomes a lot more about candidate-centered campaigns. Where things become much more about the position and the personality of the candidate than maybe as much about the party platform. And because of that, it has become more common in the last 100 or so years, where even if someone is a registered Republican, they might vote the other way, or if someone is a registered Democrat, they might vote the other way if a candidate is particularly appealing."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "For this first over 100 years, the party is where a lot of the power was. But once you start having the direct primary, it becomes a lot more about candidate-centered campaigns. Where things become much more about the position and the personality of the candidate than maybe as much about the party platform. And because of that, it has become more common in the last 100 or so years, where even if someone is a registered Republican, they might vote the other way, or if someone is a registered Democrat, they might vote the other way if a candidate is particularly appealing. For example, John F. Kennedy was a Democratic candidate for president in 1960, but many Republican Irish Catholics voted for him. Similarly, there's a group of folks known as the Reagan Democrats, who are famous for, despite their party affiliation with the Democrats, voted for President Reagan. And that was all around this idea that it was more about the candidate, especially at the presidential level, than it is about the party."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And because of that, it has become more common in the last 100 or so years, where even if someone is a registered Republican, they might vote the other way, or if someone is a registered Democrat, they might vote the other way if a candidate is particularly appealing. For example, John F. Kennedy was a Democratic candidate for president in 1960, but many Republican Irish Catholics voted for him. Similarly, there's a group of folks known as the Reagan Democrats, who are famous for, despite their party affiliation with the Democrats, voted for President Reagan. And that was all around this idea that it was more about the candidate, especially at the presidential level, than it is about the party. Now, just as how the candidate-picking process has evolved over time, so has the voter mobilization and the campaign management. In the early days, a lot of the voter mobilization, in fact, if we think about the late 1800s, where you have this party boss structure, you had people sometimes going as far as even giving people things in order to go and vote for one candidate or another, or exerting some type of pressure. The late 1800s, or the second half of the 1800s, especially in places like Chicago and New York, were sometimes infamous for not the necessarily cleanest elections."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that was all around this idea that it was more about the candidate, especially at the presidential level, than it is about the party. Now, just as how the candidate-picking process has evolved over time, so has the voter mobilization and the campaign management. In the early days, a lot of the voter mobilization, in fact, if we think about the late 1800s, where you have this party boss structure, you had people sometimes going as far as even giving people things in order to go and vote for one candidate or another, or exerting some type of pressure. The late 1800s, or the second half of the 1800s, especially in places like Chicago and New York, were sometimes infamous for not the necessarily cleanest elections. But as you get into the 20th century, especially the second half of the 20th century, and now the 21st century, things have become much, much more sophisticated. So if we go to the 20th century, you have significant use of mass media, mass media. And as you go into TV, newspaper, radio, and newspaper has always been a factor in political elections, going all the way back to the founding of the United States, and then as you go into the 21st century, things have gotten a lot more targeted."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The late 1800s, or the second half of the 1800s, especially in places like Chicago and New York, were sometimes infamous for not the necessarily cleanest elections. But as you get into the 20th century, especially the second half of the 20th century, and now the 21st century, things have become much, much more sophisticated. So if we go to the 20th century, you have significant use of mass media, mass media. And as you go into TV, newspaper, radio, and newspaper has always been a factor in political elections, going all the way back to the founding of the United States, and then as you go into the 21st century, things have gotten a lot more targeted. Obviously, you can have email campaigns. You can start to leverage social media. And the 21st century in particular, things like email campaigns and social media, has allowed for very specific targeting to voters."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And as you go into TV, newspaper, radio, and newspaper has always been a factor in political elections, going all the way back to the founding of the United States, and then as you go into the 21st century, things have gotten a lot more targeted. Obviously, you can have email campaigns. You can start to leverage social media. And the 21st century in particular, things like email campaigns and social media, has allowed for very specific targeting to voters. What do I mean by targeting? Well, let's say you really care about economic issues while your cousin who lives across town really cares about social issues. The same candidate, instead of sending both of you the same email, might send you a targeted message that speaks to what you care about."}, {"video_title": "Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the 21st century in particular, things like email campaigns and social media, has allowed for very specific targeting to voters. What do I mean by targeting? Well, let's say you really care about economic issues while your cousin who lives across town really cares about social issues. The same candidate, instead of sending both of you the same email, might send you a targeted message that speaks to what you care about. And this has actually become very, very sophisticated in the last few years. I'll leave you there. But the big takeaway here is, political parties have been around for a while in the United States, but they have been evolving."}, {"video_title": "How have congressional elections changed over time   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Congressional elections used to be separate from the presidential elections. One of the great examples is in 1938, FDR, who we all look back and think of as a president who had such extraordinary power and who could do no wrong. Well, in 1938, he tried to see if he could exercise that power. So he tried to kick some Democrats out of the Democratic Party who didn't agree with him. And he was spectacularly unsuccessful. Lots and lots of the Democrats, he put his finger on and told his fellow Democrats, you vote for my man, and they lost. Other Democrats won."}, {"video_title": "How have congressional elections changed over time   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So he tried to kick some Democrats out of the Democratic Party who didn't agree with him. And he was spectacularly unsuccessful. Lots and lots of the Democrats, he put his finger on and told his fellow Democrats, you vote for my man, and they lost. Other Democrats won. And that gives you a sense of how the president, even a popular and successful one, was very separate from his own party. Well, what's happened since then is that presidents have started to have much more control over the members of their own party and voters, who in 1938, thought it was outrageous that a president would force Democrats of his own party to vote the way he wanted them to because they saw such a separation between the presidency and the Congress. Those voters don't exist much anymore."}, {"video_title": "How have congressional elections changed over time   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Other Democrats won. And that gives you a sense of how the president, even a popular and successful one, was very separate from his own party. Well, what's happened since then is that presidents have started to have much more control over the members of their own party and voters, who in 1938, thought it was outrageous that a president would force Democrats of his own party to vote the way he wanted them to because they saw such a separation between the presidency and the Congress. Those voters don't exist much anymore. Voters now penalize a member of a party who doesn't stick with their president of that same party. So that connectedness tends to create a situation in which congressional elections in the midterms tend to be a referendum on the president, even though the president's not in the ballot. What's also the other big change in American politics is the amount of money."}, {"video_title": "How have congressional elections changed over time   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Those voters don't exist much anymore. Voters now penalize a member of a party who doesn't stick with their president of that same party. So that connectedness tends to create a situation in which congressional elections in the midterms tend to be a referendum on the president, even though the president's not in the ballot. What's also the other big change in American politics is the amount of money. In 2018, it's very likely that according to the Center for Responsive Politics, $5 billion will be spent on the election. 10 years ago, in the election of 2008, spending was half that, $2.5 billion. And that was a presidential year in which there's more spending."}, {"video_title": "How have congressional elections changed over time   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What's also the other big change in American politics is the amount of money. In 2018, it's very likely that according to the Center for Responsive Politics, $5 billion will be spent on the election. 10 years ago, in the election of 2008, spending was half that, $2.5 billion. And that was a presidential year in which there's more spending. The enormous amount of money means you have more ads, you means you have a whole group of people whose job it is to make decisions that are subtle and complicated and complex seem easy and to intensify the partisan battles between each other. And that also creates a situation in which candidates are always running for office because they're always having to raise the money to pay for all of those ads and all of those experts and all of those social media campaigns. Speaking of social media, we now have an instance in which you have real-time up or down votes from constituents and people on the sidelines telling members of Congress whether they're doing the right thing or doing the wrong thing, either in office or in elections."}, {"video_title": "How have congressional elections changed over time   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that was a presidential year in which there's more spending. The enormous amount of money means you have more ads, you means you have a whole group of people whose job it is to make decisions that are subtle and complicated and complex seem easy and to intensify the partisan battles between each other. And that also creates a situation in which candidates are always running for office because they're always having to raise the money to pay for all of those ads and all of those experts and all of those social media campaigns. Speaking of social media, we now have an instance in which you have real-time up or down votes from constituents and people on the sidelines telling members of Congress whether they're doing the right thing or doing the wrong thing, either in office or in elections. And that creates a real time jitteriness to elections. It used to be you could have a long time conversation. Heck, when Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated in those famous Lincoln-Douglas debates for a Senate seat, those debates took place over three hours."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What we're going to do in this video is start to think about voting behavior. And in particular, we're going to start classifying motivations for why someone votes for a particular candidate. And I'm going to introduce some terms that will impress your political science friends, but you'll see that they map to things that we see every day, or even behaviors that we see in ourselves in a pretty intuitive way. So one pretty clear reason why someone might vote for one candidate or another is because of their political party. And so this would be referred to as party line voting. Party line voting. So if your family has always been a Republican and you're a Republican, and you just always support the Republican candidate, that would be party line voting."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So one pretty clear reason why someone might vote for one candidate or another is because of their political party. And so this would be referred to as party line voting. Party line voting. So if your family has always been a Republican and you're a Republican, and you just always support the Republican candidate, that would be party line voting. Now, another behavior that political scientists will often talk about is the idea of rational choice. Rational choice. And this is the idea that someone would choose to vote for one candidate or another based on a perception of which candidate is going to benefit them the most."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if your family has always been a Republican and you're a Republican, and you just always support the Republican candidate, that would be party line voting. Now, another behavior that political scientists will often talk about is the idea of rational choice. Rational choice. And this is the idea that someone would choose to vote for one candidate or another based on a perception of which candidate is going to benefit them the most. Which one would it be rational for their own well-being? So for example, if you said, hey, you know what? I really care about the corporate tax rate."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is the idea that someone would choose to vote for one candidate or another based on a perception of which candidate is going to benefit them the most. Which one would it be rational for their own well-being? So for example, if you said, hey, you know what? I really care about the corporate tax rate. I'm the CEO of a corporation. If my corporate tax rate were to go down, then I would be able to have a more thriving business and I think one candidate is going to do better for me on the corporate tax rate, and I'm gonna vote for them because of that. That would be your rational choice, your model, what's driving your voting behaviors, what's gonna benefit me?"}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I really care about the corporate tax rate. I'm the CEO of a corporation. If my corporate tax rate were to go down, then I would be able to have a more thriving business and I think one candidate is going to do better for me on the corporate tax rate, and I'm gonna vote for them because of that. That would be your rational choice, your model, what's driving your voting behaviors, what's gonna benefit me? Now, another classification that you will hear talked about is retrospective voting. Retrospective. And this is the idea that, hey, I'm just gonna vote for someone if it seems like they've been doing a good job or if it seems like things have been improving under their watch."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That would be your rational choice, your model, what's driving your voting behaviors, what's gonna benefit me? Now, another classification that you will hear talked about is retrospective voting. Retrospective. And this is the idea that, hey, I'm just gonna vote for someone if it seems like they've been doing a good job or if it seems like things have been improving under their watch. You're looking in retrospect, and this will often be for incumbents, and saying, hey, look, yeah, the last term was pretty good with them, so I'm gonna vote for them again. Now, the last classification we will introduce in this video is the opposite of retrospective voting, and this is looking into the future. Prospective voting, prospective voting."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is the idea that, hey, I'm just gonna vote for someone if it seems like they've been doing a good job or if it seems like things have been improving under their watch. You're looking in retrospect, and this will often be for incumbents, and saying, hey, look, yeah, the last term was pretty good with them, so I'm gonna vote for them again. Now, the last classification we will introduce in this video is the opposite of retrospective voting, and this is looking into the future. Prospective voting, prospective voting. And here, you might look at one candidate and say, look, I think that they will be better for the country over the next four years. You're not even necessarily thinking about your own personal benefit. You're thinking about the country as a whole, but you're looking forward."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Prospective voting, prospective voting. And here, you might look at one candidate and say, look, I think that they will be better for the country over the next four years. You're not even necessarily thinking about your own personal benefit. You're thinking about the country as a whole, but you're looking forward. You're looking prospectively and thinking about, hey, candidate A I think is gonna do a better job, so I'm gonna vote for her. So with these classifications out of the way, let's look at some statements that you might hear from folks when they think about who they are voting for. So here, it says, the economy has been growing under Clinton so he has my vote."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You're thinking about the country as a whole, but you're looking forward. You're looking prospectively and thinking about, hey, candidate A I think is gonna do a better job, so I'm gonna vote for her. So with these classifications out of the way, let's look at some statements that you might hear from folks when they think about who they are voting for. So here, it says, the economy has been growing under Clinton so he has my vote. So pause this video, and how would you classify this motivation for voting? Well, here, the person, the voter, is talking about the economy in the recent past. So this right over here is retrospective voting."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So here, it says, the economy has been growing under Clinton so he has my vote. So pause this video, and how would you classify this motivation for voting? Well, here, the person, the voter, is talking about the economy in the recent past. So this right over here is retrospective voting. So I'll draw a line right over there. That is retrospective voting. Clinton seems to have been doing a good job or the economy's been growing under him, so he has my, he has my vote."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this right over here is retrospective voting. So I'll draw a line right over there. That is retrospective voting. Clinton seems to have been doing a good job or the economy's been growing under him, so he has my, he has my vote. Now, what about this statement? I am a lifelong Democrat, so Obama has my vote. Pause this video."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Clinton seems to have been doing a good job or the economy's been growing under him, so he has my, he has my vote. Now, what about this statement? I am a lifelong Democrat, so Obama has my vote. Pause this video. What type of voting behavior is that? Well, here, the individual is clearly motivated by their party line. They're not talking about Obama being good for them in particular, they're not talking about what Obama's gonna do in the future or what he's done in the recent past."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Pause this video. What type of voting behavior is that? Well, here, the individual is clearly motivated by their party line. They're not talking about Obama being good for them in particular, they're not talking about what Obama's gonna do in the future or what he's done in the recent past. They're just talking about his party and that being the motivation for voting for him. So that would be party line voting. Now, what about this statement?"}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They're not talking about Obama being good for them in particular, they're not talking about what Obama's gonna do in the future or what he's done in the recent past. They're just talking about his party and that being the motivation for voting for him. So that would be party line voting. Now, what about this statement? Bush has ideas that will be really good for this country, so I'm going to vote for him. Pause this video. What type of voting behavior is that?"}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, what about this statement? Bush has ideas that will be really good for this country, so I'm going to vote for him. Pause this video. What type of voting behavior is that? Well, here, the voter's thinking prospectively, thinking about, well, what will Bush do for the country in the near future, ideas that will be really good for this country, so that is prospective voting. And then one more example. So if someone were to say, I think Mitt Romney will lower my taxes, so I'm going to vote for him."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What type of voting behavior is that? Well, here, the voter's thinking prospectively, thinking about, well, what will Bush do for the country in the near future, ideas that will be really good for this country, so that is prospective voting. And then one more example. So if someone were to say, I think Mitt Romney will lower my taxes, so I'm going to vote for him. What would that be? Pause the video again. Well, we have one choice left here, and that is indeed rational choice."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if someone were to say, I think Mitt Romney will lower my taxes, so I'm going to vote for him. What would that be? Pause the video again. Well, we have one choice left here, and that is indeed rational choice. This voter is voting based on what is going to benefit them. Mitt Romney's gonna lower their taxes, so they're gonna vote for them. And to be clear, it's not that everyone's behavior falls clearly into one of these categories."}, {"video_title": "Models of voting behavior   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, we have one choice left here, and that is indeed rational choice. This voter is voting based on what is going to benefit them. Mitt Romney's gonna lower their taxes, so they're gonna vote for them. And to be clear, it's not that everyone's behavior falls clearly into one of these categories. It oftentimes will be a mix of these categories. In fact, oftentimes, someone might say, hey, I like Obama because he's a Democrat, and I think he's going to be good for me, and things might have been good under him, or their perception is that things are good under him, and they might believe that it's gonna be good going forward. Many voters will be motivated by a combination of these."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And by the 1830s, the right to vote extended to all white men, regardless of whether they owned property. Although they were citizens, white women could not vote. Indigenous people, enslaved people, and free black people weren't permitted to be US citizens or to vote. So let's pick up the story now in the 1840s, when the United States rapidly colonized North America. As part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the peace treaty that ended the Mexican-American War, the Mexican government ceded the territory that's now most of the Western half of the United States. The Mexican people who were already living in that territory were granted US citizenship, although the indigenous people who were living there were not. Although the Mexican-American citizens were eligible to vote in theory, in practice, they faced intimidation from white Americans that limited their access to voting."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's pick up the story now in the 1840s, when the United States rapidly colonized North America. As part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the peace treaty that ended the Mexican-American War, the Mexican government ceded the territory that's now most of the Western half of the United States. The Mexican people who were already living in that territory were granted US citizenship, although the indigenous people who were living there were not. Although the Mexican-American citizens were eligible to vote in theory, in practice, they faced intimidation from white Americans that limited their access to voting. During the 1850s, debate over the institution of slavery and the status of black Americans consumed the country. In the midst of this turmoil in 1857, the Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott opinion, which we'll talk about in more detail in another video, ruling that black people were not guaranteed birthright citizenship and had no pathway to citizenship. Asian immigrants who started coming to the United States in larger numbers in the 1850s were also not considered eligible for citizenship."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Although the Mexican-American citizens were eligible to vote in theory, in practice, they faced intimidation from white Americans that limited their access to voting. During the 1850s, debate over the institution of slavery and the status of black Americans consumed the country. In the midst of this turmoil in 1857, the Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott opinion, which we'll talk about in more detail in another video, ruling that black people were not guaranteed birthright citizenship and had no pathway to citizenship. Asian immigrants who started coming to the United States in larger numbers in the 1850s were also not considered eligible for citizenship. And in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the US government banned immigration from China and Japan altogether. In the 1860s, the tensions between slave and free states boiled over into war. The Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery, starting a civil war that lasted for four years."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Asian immigrants who started coming to the United States in larger numbers in the 1850s were also not considered eligible for citizenship. And in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the US government banned immigration from China and Japan altogether. In the 1860s, the tensions between slave and free states boiled over into war. The Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery, starting a civil war that lasted for four years. During the civil war, the US government issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring the end of slavery in the Southern states. And after the war ratified the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery everywhere in the country. But ending slavery didn't automatically guarantee citizenship rights for black people in the United States."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery, starting a civil war that lasted for four years. During the civil war, the US government issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring the end of slavery in the Southern states. And after the war ratified the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery everywhere in the country. But ending slavery didn't automatically guarantee citizenship rights for black people in the United States. In 1868, the ratification of the 14th Amendment established that all persons born or naturalized in the United States were citizens. This ensured that black people, both men and women had citizenship, as well as the US born children of Asian immigrants. Although again, it was still not interpreted to mean that indigenous people had citizenship at this time."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But ending slavery didn't automatically guarantee citizenship rights for black people in the United States. In 1868, the ratification of the 14th Amendment established that all persons born or naturalized in the United States were citizens. This ensured that black people, both men and women had citizenship, as well as the US born children of Asian immigrants. Although again, it was still not interpreted to mean that indigenous people had citizenship at this time. In addition, a new Naturalization Act of 1870 broadened the people who were eligible for citizenship to include aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent. But just like the end of slavery didn't automatically guarantee citizenship rights, citizenship didn't automatically guarantee voting rights. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights was the right to vote protected."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Although again, it was still not interpreted to mean that indigenous people had citizenship at this time. In addition, a new Naturalization Act of 1870 broadened the people who were eligible for citizenship to include aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent. But just like the end of slavery didn't automatically guarantee citizenship rights, citizenship didn't automatically guarantee voting rights. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights was the right to vote protected. Elections then as now were controlled by the states. And although the 14th Amendment stipulated that states would lose representation in Congress if they denied the vote to any male citizen of voting age, this was the first time that the word male was introduced into the Constitution, which we'll see the importance of in just a sec. It quickly became clear that a stronger amendment was needed to ensure black citizens could vote."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights was the right to vote protected. Elections then as now were controlled by the states. And although the 14th Amendment stipulated that states would lose representation in Congress if they denied the vote to any male citizen of voting age, this was the first time that the word male was introduced into the Constitution, which we'll see the importance of in just a sec. It quickly became clear that a stronger amendment was needed to ensure black citizens could vote. So in 1870, Congress passed and the states ratified the 15th Amendment, which prohibited the federal government and the states from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This was intended to ensure that black men had the right to vote, which they exercised in the South for several years until the US government stopped enforcing the rights of black citizens in the South and white supremacist governments returned to power. The 15th Amendment also did not prevent the denial of voting rights on the basis of sex, which was a major blow for the women's suffrage movement."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It quickly became clear that a stronger amendment was needed to ensure black citizens could vote. So in 1870, Congress passed and the states ratified the 15th Amendment, which prohibited the federal government and the states from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This was intended to ensure that black men had the right to vote, which they exercised in the South for several years until the US government stopped enforcing the rights of black citizens in the South and white supremacist governments returned to power. The 15th Amendment also did not prevent the denial of voting rights on the basis of sex, which was a major blow for the women's suffrage movement. Women would not succeed in their campaign for the vote until 1920. So that's a very brief overview of the changes in citizenship and voting rights in the first 100 years after the founding of the United States. I'll leave you to reflect on a few questions."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The 15th Amendment also did not prevent the denial of voting rights on the basis of sex, which was a major blow for the women's suffrage movement. Women would not succeed in their campaign for the vote until 1920. So that's a very brief overview of the changes in citizenship and voting rights in the first 100 years after the founding of the United States. I'll leave you to reflect on a few questions. Why do you think that citizenship changed over time? What does the history of who did and didn't have citizenship at various points tell us about the concept of citizenship in the United States? And what's the relationship between citizenship and voting rights?"}, {"video_title": "How has the position of Speaker changed over time   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Henry Clay, an early Speaker of the House who had three different terms as Speaker of the House, used the position to shepherd all kinds of legislation to improve America. He also played a crucial role in John Quincy Adams' becoming president because the election was thrown into the House. He was quite powerful. Then the job kind of got less powerful. There were periods during the Civil War where there wasn't a Speaker of the House for long periods because there was so much contention in the Congress, they couldn't pick a Speaker of the House. The modern Speaker of the House has become increasingly powerful, really growing with the growth of the federal government around, let's say, the Second World War. Various different Speakers gaining more power."}, {"video_title": "How has the position of Speaker changed over time   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then the job kind of got less powerful. There were periods during the Civil War where there wasn't a Speaker of the House for long periods because there was so much contention in the Congress, they couldn't pick a Speaker of the House. The modern Speaker of the House has become increasingly powerful, really growing with the growth of the federal government around, let's say, the Second World War. Various different Speakers gaining more power. And in the recent incarnation, the Speaker is particularly powerful in two different ways. One is shepherding a president's legislation if the Speaker's from the same party, and the other is in opposition. They become essentially the opposition speaking against a president of an opposite party."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the last video, we gave a basic outline of the different scenarios that might play out in 2013, or at least the different budgetary proposals on the table from the administration, from the Republicans, and what'll happen if they don't come into agreement, which was the fiscal cliff, which is this fairly unusual situation where the both parties to the negotiation set up this thing that will automatically happen at the beginning of 2013 that it would be painful for both parties, and the thinking being that it'll force them to come maybe to some type of an agreement sooner than later. The fiscal cliff is what neither the Republicans or the administration want because it raises taxes, which the Republicans don't want, and it reduces spending, which the president doesn't want, and the core argument, and we touched it on the last video and we'll go in more depth in this one, is just as we are beginning to recover from our last recession, it might not be useful for our economy to try to suck out half a trillion dollars. So let's think about the different issues at play. So right over here, let's have some charts. Most of these are from the Congressional Budget Office, and there's a bunch of assumptions that go into this, and there are many people who will debate the assumptions that they make, but they at least directionally show the right things. So this right over here, this first chart, is compares deficits or surpluses, and really ever since the early 2000s, we've been running deficits, and as we got into the late, I guess, 10s, or 2008, 2010 time frame, 2009 time frame, as we went into a financial crisis, when you go into a, when the economy contracts, you get hit in two ways when you think about deficit spending. On one end, you bring in less revenues."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So right over here, let's have some charts. Most of these are from the Congressional Budget Office, and there's a bunch of assumptions that go into this, and there are many people who will debate the assumptions that they make, but they at least directionally show the right things. So this right over here, this first chart, is compares deficits or surpluses, and really ever since the early 2000s, we've been running deficits, and as we got into the late, I guess, 10s, or 2008, 2010 time frame, 2009 time frame, as we went into a financial crisis, when you go into a, when the economy contracts, you get hit in two ways when you think about deficit spending. On one end, you bring in less revenues. The economy is shrinking, and on the other end, you have to spend more. You have to give people more benefits, more unemployment benefits, things like that. So whenever you see the economy shrink, you will see naturally all other things being equal."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "On one end, you bring in less revenues. The economy is shrinking, and on the other end, you have to spend more. You have to give people more benefits, more unemployment benefits, things like that. So whenever you see the economy shrink, you will see naturally all other things being equal. You will see deficits increase, and that's what you saw right over here, and on top of that, the government is trying to bail things out, is doing stimulus spending and all that in order to minimize the effect of the deficit, and that's why you see here in 2008, 2009, we start running significant, significant deficits. Now, what's interesting, what's interesting is what's going to happen going forward, and going forward, there's two of these scenarios right here. There is the CBO's baseline projection, and then there's the alternative fiscal scenario, and just to be clear where we are, we are entering this phase right over here in 2013, and the baseline projection is essentially if the government takes no more action, and if the government takes no more action, then the fiscal cliff will be triggered."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So whenever you see the economy shrink, you will see naturally all other things being equal. You will see deficits increase, and that's what you saw right over here, and on top of that, the government is trying to bail things out, is doing stimulus spending and all that in order to minimize the effect of the deficit, and that's why you see here in 2008, 2009, we start running significant, significant deficits. Now, what's interesting, what's interesting is what's going to happen going forward, and going forward, there's two of these scenarios right here. There is the CBO's baseline projection, and then there's the alternative fiscal scenario, and just to be clear where we are, we are entering this phase right over here in 2013, and the baseline projection is essentially if the government takes no more action, and if the government takes no more action, then the fiscal cliff will be triggered. We will essentially have 500 billion less in 2013's deficit, and so what you see here is that the deficits go down dramatically, go down, go down dramatically. We start, we have to borrow less on an annual basis. Now, the alternative fiscal scenario is if we essentially continue, if we extend our existing spending, and if we continue to extend the Bush-era tax cuts."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There is the CBO's baseline projection, and then there's the alternative fiscal scenario, and just to be clear where we are, we are entering this phase right over here in 2013, and the baseline projection is essentially if the government takes no more action, and if the government takes no more action, then the fiscal cliff will be triggered. We will essentially have 500 billion less in 2013's deficit, and so what you see here is that the deficits go down dramatically, go down, go down dramatically. We start, we have to borrow less on an annual basis. Now, the alternative fiscal scenario is if we essentially continue, if we extend our existing spending, and if we continue to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. We go along this path, and so if you care a lot about deficits, the fiscal cliff scenario, which is this top line, this is actually the fiscal, let me write that in a color you can see, that's actually the fiscal cliff. The fiscal cliff scenario actually looks pretty good. Hey, look, we have much, much lower deficits in that scenario than if we were to continue, if we were to continue the tax cuts, and if we were to continue the spending."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, the alternative fiscal scenario is if we essentially continue, if we extend our existing spending, and if we continue to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. We go along this path, and so if you care a lot about deficits, the fiscal cliff scenario, which is this top line, this is actually the fiscal, let me write that in a color you can see, that's actually the fiscal cliff. The fiscal cliff scenario actually looks pretty good. Hey, look, we have much, much lower deficits in that scenario than if we were to continue, if we were to continue the tax cuts, and if we were to continue the spending. So there, that looks like actually an argument for the fiscal cliff. Now, let's look at this. Now, this is, we're gonna talk about the aggregate debt."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Hey, look, we have much, much lower deficits in that scenario than if we were to continue, if we were to continue the tax cuts, and if we were to continue the spending. So there, that looks like actually an argument for the fiscal cliff. Now, let's look at this. Now, this is, we're gonna talk about the aggregate debt. When we say deficit, we're talking about the shortfall in a given year. The debt is the aggregate amount that the government owes. So this is federal debt held by the public, historically and as projected, in CBO's baseline."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, this is, we're gonna talk about the aggregate debt. When we say deficit, we're talking about the shortfall in a given year. The debt is the aggregate amount that the government owes. So this is federal debt held by the public, historically and as projected, in CBO's baseline. And a lot of what CBO, when they project, they can only do so much in projecting how good the economy might be or how bad it might be. To a large degree, they extrapolate from where we are right now. And right over here, you see debt as a percentage of GDP."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is federal debt held by the public, historically and as projected, in CBO's baseline. And a lot of what CBO, when they project, they can only do so much in projecting how good the economy might be or how bad it might be. To a large degree, they extrapolate from where we are right now. And right over here, you see debt as a percentage of GDP. So you can imagine, during World War II, we had a lot of debt as a percentage of GDP. See over here, after the end of World War II, we start crossing over 100% of GDP is our debt, the aggregate amount that the government owes. And then it de-levered."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And right over here, you see debt as a percentage of GDP. So you can imagine, during World War II, we had a lot of debt as a percentage of GDP. See over here, after the end of World War II, we start crossing over 100% of GDP is our debt, the aggregate amount that the government owes. And then it de-levered. And then you see this rough trend, roughly from the early 80s, all early 80s until now, where we have increasing, increasing aggregate debt. There were some moments in the late 90s, early 2000s, where we took it down, very, very, very strong economy. We started running surpluses."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then it de-levered. And then you see this rough trend, roughly from the early 80s, all early 80s until now, where we have increasing, increasing aggregate debt. There were some moments in the late 90s, early 2000s, where we took it down, very, very, very strong economy. We started running surpluses. We started to pay down some of our debt. But then we kind of hit back on this debt increasing trend line. And once again, if we continue, in the alternative fiscal scenario, which is really continuing to do what we do today, which is extend the tax cuts and continue to have roughly the same level of spending, you see that the debt only continues to increase, only continues to increase."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We started running surpluses. We started to pay down some of our debt. But then we kind of hit back on this debt increasing trend line. And once again, if we continue, in the alternative fiscal scenario, which is really continuing to do what we do today, which is extend the tax cuts and continue to have roughly the same level of spending, you see that the debt only continues to increase, only continues to increase. In the baseline projection, this is actually the fiscal cliff scenario. This is where no new legislation is passed. Those triggers in which the Bush-era tax cuts expire and the spending cuts that are triggered by the fiscal cliff scenario hit, we run lower deficits, and we actually see that debt, as a percentage of GDP, actually starts to go down, which is a, at least from a balance sheet perspective, seems like a good thing."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And once again, if we continue, in the alternative fiscal scenario, which is really continuing to do what we do today, which is extend the tax cuts and continue to have roughly the same level of spending, you see that the debt only continues to increase, only continues to increase. In the baseline projection, this is actually the fiscal cliff scenario. This is where no new legislation is passed. Those triggers in which the Bush-era tax cuts expire and the spending cuts that are triggered by the fiscal cliff scenario hit, we run lower deficits, and we actually see that debt, as a percentage of GDP, actually starts to go down, which is a, at least from a balance sheet perspective, seems like a good thing. So these first two charts say, hey, maybe this fiscal cliff thing isn't so bad. It will actually significantly lower the deficit on an annual basis, and as a percentage of GDP, we will, as a country, delever. Now let's think about the arguments why, well, maybe we don't wanna be that aggressive when it comes to reducing our deficit or reducing our debt as a percentage of GDP."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Those triggers in which the Bush-era tax cuts expire and the spending cuts that are triggered by the fiscal cliff scenario hit, we run lower deficits, and we actually see that debt, as a percentage of GDP, actually starts to go down, which is a, at least from a balance sheet perspective, seems like a good thing. So these first two charts say, hey, maybe this fiscal cliff thing isn't so bad. It will actually significantly lower the deficit on an annual basis, and as a percentage of GDP, we will, as a country, delever. Now let's think about the arguments why, well, maybe we don't wanna be that aggressive when it comes to reducing our deficit or reducing our debt as a percentage of GDP. This first chart right over here is the, we'll read it right over here. It's the percent of our population that is employed. And you see right here, so it's a proxy for employment or unemployment, or in this case, it's employment, and you see we hit a major recession at the end of 2008."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now let's think about the arguments why, well, maybe we don't wanna be that aggressive when it comes to reducing our deficit or reducing our debt as a percentage of GDP. This first chart right over here is the, we'll read it right over here. It's the percent of our population that is employed. And you see right here, so it's a proxy for employment or unemployment, or in this case, it's employment, and you see we hit a major recession at the end of 2008. You saw the percentage of our population that is employed go down dramatically. We kinda hit bottom over here, and we're having a kind of a shaky, hopefully a shaky recovery right now. It's not even clear how good that will be, but hopefully we're having a shaky recovery of sorts."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you see right here, so it's a proxy for employment or unemployment, or in this case, it's employment, and you see we hit a major recession at the end of 2008. You saw the percentage of our population that is employed go down dramatically. We kinda hit bottom over here, and we're having a kind of a shaky, hopefully a shaky recovery right now. It's not even clear how good that will be, but hopefully we're having a shaky recovery of sorts. And so just as we're starting to recover, it might not be helpful to take, essentially, $500 billion out of the economy in order to pay down debt. So the fiscal cliff scenario might make us go back into a little bit of a lurch. And most economists are predicting about on the order of a percent slower growth if the fiscal cliff scenario were to hit."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's not even clear how good that will be, but hopefully we're having a shaky recovery of sorts. And so just as we're starting to recover, it might not be helpful to take, essentially, $500 billion out of the economy in order to pay down debt. So the fiscal cliff scenario might make us go back into a little bit of a lurch. And most economists are predicting about on the order of a percent slower growth if the fiscal cliff scenario were to hit. Actually, most economists, not a percent, they're actually expecting about a 2% hit to the economy if the fiscal cliff scenario would happen. And rather from going from 1.7% growth, we might go to negative, a slight recession, a slight receding of the economy. So that could be, that's obviously not a good scenario that we wanna be in."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And most economists are predicting about on the order of a percent slower growth if the fiscal cliff scenario were to hit. Actually, most economists, not a percent, they're actually expecting about a 2% hit to the economy if the fiscal cliff scenario would happen. And rather from going from 1.7% growth, we might go to negative, a slight recession, a slight receding of the economy. So that could be, that's obviously not a good scenario that we wanna be in. The other chart that I have right over here, these are yields on 10-year treasury notes. This seems like a very technical thing to talk about, but this is essentially the interest, one way to think about it, this is the interest that the government is paying when it borrows money for 10 years. And one of the main arguments for paying down debt is that if the government keeps borrowing money, it's going to crowd out other borrowers, it's going to make demand for money high, and maybe the supply will be more and more scarce, and interest rates will go up."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that could be, that's obviously not a good scenario that we wanna be in. The other chart that I have right over here, these are yields on 10-year treasury notes. This seems like a very technical thing to talk about, but this is essentially the interest, one way to think about it, this is the interest that the government is paying when it borrows money for 10 years. And one of the main arguments for paying down debt is that if the government keeps borrowing money, it's going to crowd out other borrowers, it's going to make demand for money high, and maybe the supply will be more and more scarce, and interest rates will go up. So a lot of borrowing could make interest rates go up. And then the other idea is, well, if there's a lot of just borrowing and spending going on, and if we don't have a lot of productive capacity, it could also lead to inflation. Or maybe when the government has a huge debt, they have an incentive to try to have inflationary policies so that in real terms, that debt seems to be less."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And one of the main arguments for paying down debt is that if the government keeps borrowing money, it's going to crowd out other borrowers, it's going to make demand for money high, and maybe the supply will be more and more scarce, and interest rates will go up. So a lot of borrowing could make interest rates go up. And then the other idea is, well, if there's a lot of just borrowing and spending going on, and if we don't have a lot of productive capacity, it could also lead to inflation. Or maybe when the government has a huge debt, they have an incentive to try to have inflationary policies so that in real terms, that debt seems to be less. But when you look at the debt markets, and these are market-driven numbers, the Federal Reserve does not control 10-year yields, the Federal Reserve controls short-term yields, you see that we have historically low interest rates. So the bond market, the bond market, and there's some very smart people who are living, or who make their living investing in the bond markets, one of the biggest markets, if not the biggest, is saying it's really not worried about deficits. It's willing to lend to the US government at all-time low interest rates."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or maybe when the government has a huge debt, they have an incentive to try to have inflationary policies so that in real terms, that debt seems to be less. But when you look at the debt markets, and these are market-driven numbers, the Federal Reserve does not control 10-year yields, the Federal Reserve controls short-term yields, you see that we have historically low interest rates. So the bond market, the bond market, and there's some very smart people who are living, or who make their living investing in the bond markets, one of the biggest markets, if not the biggest, is saying it's really not worried about deficits. It's willing to lend to the US government at all-time low interest rates. It's not expecting any inflation. If anything, the bond market is saying that the biggest risk in the economy is continued sluggish growth. The biggest risk in the economy is maybe even some form of deflation."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's willing to lend to the US government at all-time low interest rates. It's not expecting any inflation. If anything, the bond market is saying that the biggest risk in the economy is continued sluggish growth. The biggest risk in the economy is maybe even some form of deflation. So this super low bond yields right over here would be an argument that, well, yeah, if you believe what the bond market is saying, one, definitely should not suck money out of the economy, and the risks of maintaining high levels of debt might not be as high as some people are saying, that you're not going to see interest rates and inflation go through the roof tomorrow. Now, if you ascribe to that second point of view, that, okay, yes, we should be responsible, we should start to, at minimum, lower our deficit, and then over time, as a percentage of GDP, lower our debt, the other question is how do you do that? The Republicans would wanna do it mainly through spending cuts, while the Democrats would wanna do that possibly through spending cuts, but also by maintaining some of the tax or letting some of the tax cuts on the wealthy expire and maybe even adding some other tax."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The biggest risk in the economy is maybe even some form of deflation. So this super low bond yields right over here would be an argument that, well, yeah, if you believe what the bond market is saying, one, definitely should not suck money out of the economy, and the risks of maintaining high levels of debt might not be as high as some people are saying, that you're not going to see interest rates and inflation go through the roof tomorrow. Now, if you ascribe to that second point of view, that, okay, yes, we should be responsible, we should start to, at minimum, lower our deficit, and then over time, as a percentage of GDP, lower our debt, the other question is how do you do that? The Republicans would wanna do it mainly through spending cuts, while the Democrats would wanna do that possibly through spending cuts, but also by maintaining some of the tax or letting some of the tax cuts on the wealthy expire and maybe even adding some other tax. And so these two charts inform some of those positions, and I'm trying to give as balanced of an approach as I can. So for a Democrat, they might look at this chart right over here, and they might say, well, look, average tax rates for the highest income taxpayers, if you look at it on a historical basis, it looks like it's relatively low. It looks like it's relatively low, and a lot of this comes out of the idea that even though the marginal tax rates are higher than what you see here, high income taxpayers, a lot of their income might be from capital gains, from dividends, those are taxed at 15%."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Republicans would wanna do it mainly through spending cuts, while the Democrats would wanna do that possibly through spending cuts, but also by maintaining some of the tax or letting some of the tax cuts on the wealthy expire and maybe even adding some other tax. And so these two charts inform some of those positions, and I'm trying to give as balanced of an approach as I can. So for a Democrat, they might look at this chart right over here, and they might say, well, look, average tax rates for the highest income taxpayers, if you look at it on a historical basis, it looks like it's relatively low. It looks like it's relatively low, and a lot of this comes out of the idea that even though the marginal tax rates are higher than what you see here, high income taxpayers, a lot of their income might be from capital gains, from dividends, those are taxed at 15%. They also might have more sophisticated accountants who can get them more deductions, and so that's why you have them paying, and they're getting more sophisticated as time goes by, and that's why you see this trend going down. And so this could be an argument, well, at least relative to historical basis, that this category of folks might be able to afford to pay more. There's also another argument in terms of kind of a stimulus argument or how to minimize impact on the economy, that if you were to give, if you were to give, so if you have a dollar that you wanna somehow stimulate the economy with, well, one, the government could spend the money, and there are many arguments, very good arguments, why the government is not always the most efficient spender of money and not always spending it in the best way, but they will definitely spend it."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It looks like it's relatively low, and a lot of this comes out of the idea that even though the marginal tax rates are higher than what you see here, high income taxpayers, a lot of their income might be from capital gains, from dividends, those are taxed at 15%. They also might have more sophisticated accountants who can get them more deductions, and so that's why you have them paying, and they're getting more sophisticated as time goes by, and that's why you see this trend going down. And so this could be an argument, well, at least relative to historical basis, that this category of folks might be able to afford to pay more. There's also another argument in terms of kind of a stimulus argument or how to minimize impact on the economy, that if you were to give, if you were to give, so if you have a dollar that you wanna somehow stimulate the economy with, well, one, the government could spend the money, and there are many arguments, very good arguments, why the government is not always the most efficient spender of money and not always spending it in the best way, but they will definitely spend it. So you give it to the government, you give it to the government, they'll definitely spend it and then some. So they'll definitely spend that dollar. At least it will enter into the economy."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's also another argument in terms of kind of a stimulus argument or how to minimize impact on the economy, that if you were to give, if you were to give, so if you have a dollar that you wanna somehow stimulate the economy with, well, one, the government could spend the money, and there are many arguments, very good arguments, why the government is not always the most efficient spender of money and not always spending it in the best way, but they will definitely spend it. So you give it to the government, you give it to the government, they'll definitely spend it and then some. So they'll definitely spend that dollar. At least it will enter into the economy. Now, if you give it to the middle class, if you give it to the middle class, they are also likely to spend it or to spend a good chunk of it, maybe save a little bit. And the argument would be that if you give it to someone who's affluent, if you give it to someone affluent, they are likely to save it. Now, saving is not always a bad thing."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "At least it will enter into the economy. Now, if you give it to the middle class, if you give it to the middle class, they are also likely to spend it or to spend a good chunk of it, maybe save a little bit. And the argument would be that if you give it to someone who's affluent, if you give it to someone affluent, they are likely to save it. Now, saving is not always a bad thing. If you are low on investment, you need more savers. If interest rates, if interest rates were going through the roof right over here, that means that we need, we don't have enough supply of money, in which case it would make sense that we would try to incent savers. So if you have a situation in the late 70s where you have inflation going through the roof, you want people to actually invest more, you want a higher supply of money, it makes complete sense to put more money in the hands of people who are likely to save and invest that money."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, saving is not always a bad thing. If you are low on investment, you need more savers. If interest rates, if interest rates were going through the roof right over here, that means that we need, we don't have enough supply of money, in which case it would make sense that we would try to incent savers. So if you have a situation in the late 70s where you have inflation going through the roof, you want people to actually invest more, you want a higher supply of money, it makes complete sense to put more money in the hands of people who are likely to save and invest that money. But here, at least if you believe the bond market, it looks like we have a demand problem that it's actually, it's very cheap to get capital. If anything, there's a surplus of capital out there, but there's not enough demand in order for people to, I guess, get the economy to run at its potential. So a democratic argument would be, look, if we're gonna have this dollar, the person that we're best off giving it to is the middle class or possibly to some degree, the government, because at least they will spend it."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if you have a situation in the late 70s where you have inflation going through the roof, you want people to actually invest more, you want a higher supply of money, it makes complete sense to put more money in the hands of people who are likely to save and invest that money. But here, at least if you believe the bond market, it looks like we have a demand problem that it's actually, it's very cheap to get capital. If anything, there's a surplus of capital out there, but there's not enough demand in order for people to, I guess, get the economy to run at its potential. So a democratic argument would be, look, if we're gonna have this dollar, the person that we're best off giving it to is the middle class or possibly to some degree, the government, because at least they will spend it. It will help stimulate the economy here. It will go into savings, but that doesn't seem like what the government needs right now. Now, the counter argument that you might get from someone at the right is that, first, the government is just a hugely inefficient spender of capital, and there's a lot of evidence to you definitely need a government, but they don't always spend money in the most efficient and even sometimes it leads to levels of corruption."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So a democratic argument would be, look, if we're gonna have this dollar, the person that we're best off giving it to is the middle class or possibly to some degree, the government, because at least they will spend it. It will help stimulate the economy here. It will go into savings, but that doesn't seem like what the government needs right now. Now, the counter argument that you might get from someone at the right is that, first, the government is just a hugely inefficient spender of capital, and there's a lot of evidence to you definitely need a government, but they don't always spend money in the most efficient and even sometimes it leads to levels of corruption. And oftentimes, when you do something in the name of stimulus, maybe it might make sense to do it in the short term, but once that program is in place, it's very hard to remove that program. People start to depend on it, even when, in theory, you don't need the stimulus anymore. It's very hard to shrink the size of government."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, the counter argument that you might get from someone at the right is that, first, the government is just a hugely inefficient spender of capital, and there's a lot of evidence to you definitely need a government, but they don't always spend money in the most efficient and even sometimes it leads to levels of corruption. And oftentimes, when you do something in the name of stimulus, maybe it might make sense to do it in the short term, but once that program is in place, it's very hard to remove that program. People start to depend on it, even when, in theory, you don't need the stimulus anymore. It's very hard to shrink the size of government. And there's some argument for that. If you look at outlays, government expenditures as a percentage of GDP, it does look like, on a historic basis, it is high. Now, to some degree, this is due to the fact that we have entered into kind of a major recessionary phase, you see that in all of the major recessions, in all of the major recessions, the government gets less revenue, so the government gets less revenue and has to do more outlays."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's very hard to shrink the size of government. And there's some argument for that. If you look at outlays, government expenditures as a percentage of GDP, it does look like, on a historic basis, it is high. Now, to some degree, this is due to the fact that we have entered into kind of a major recessionary phase, you see that in all of the major recessions, in all of the major recessions, the government gets less revenue, so the government gets less revenue and has to do more outlays. This happens in every, this happens, well, I would say in most recessions, and this happened in dramatic form, where we started to have more outlays, we had, actually at this point, we had wars that we were funding, and we were doing these trillion dollar stimulus packages, and we had these trillion dollar bailouts. At the same time that the economy was receding right over here. But just when you look at this, it does look like the government spending as a percentage of GDP is at historical highs."}, {"video_title": "More fiscal cliff analysis   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, to some degree, this is due to the fact that we have entered into kind of a major recessionary phase, you see that in all of the major recessions, in all of the major recessions, the government gets less revenue, so the government gets less revenue and has to do more outlays. This happens in every, this happens, well, I would say in most recessions, and this happened in dramatic form, where we started to have more outlays, we had, actually at this point, we had wars that we were funding, and we were doing these trillion dollar stimulus packages, and we had these trillion dollar bailouts. At the same time that the economy was receding right over here. But just when you look at this, it does look like the government spending as a percentage of GDP is at historical highs. And as we say, as the argument would have it, it's very hard to get that to shrink even when it should be shrinking, and it's often being deployed in less than efficient ways. So I will leave you there. My intent really is not to sway you one way or the other, but to really just hope that you have good information when you think about the issues surrounding the fiscal cliff."}, {"video_title": "Political rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what are some of these rights? First, there's freedom of association. This means that you can join a political party or a special interest group that represents you. You're not obligated to belong to a particular party backed by the government, and you can't be discriminated against for belonging to a political organization. There are the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition. This means that you can share political ideas, print political ideas, assemble for political purposes, like a conference or a protest march, and ask the government to correct a wrong without fear of punishment. One of the most important political rights is the right to vote."}, {"video_title": "Political rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You're not obligated to belong to a particular party backed by the government, and you can't be discriminated against for belonging to a political organization. There are the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition. This means that you can share political ideas, print political ideas, assemble for political purposes, like a conference or a protest march, and ask the government to correct a wrong without fear of punishment. One of the most important political rights is the right to vote. Citizens may vote as they choose according to the laws of their state. There's also the right to run for public office. Anyone who meets the criteria specified by the Constitution and their state or municipality may run for elected office without government interference."}, {"video_title": "Political rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One of the most important political rights is the right to vote. Citizens may vote as they choose according to the laws of their state. There's also the right to run for public office. Anyone who meets the criteria specified by the Constitution and their state or municipality may run for elected office without government interference. Now, you may be asking, wait, what's the difference between political rights and civil rights? Well, civil rights overlap with these rights, as well as with personal rights, because civil rights protect people who belong to marginalized groups from discrimination. So if a society permits some people to vote, but not others based on their race, sex, religion, or other characteristic, that society is infringing on the civil rights of those citizens by denying them their political rights."}, {"video_title": "Political rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Anyone who meets the criteria specified by the Constitution and their state or municipality may run for elected office without government interference. Now, you may be asking, wait, what's the difference between political rights and civil rights? Well, civil rights overlap with these rights, as well as with personal rights, because civil rights protect people who belong to marginalized groups from discrimination. So if a society permits some people to vote, but not others based on their race, sex, religion, or other characteristic, that society is infringing on the civil rights of those citizens by denying them their political rights. So let's take a look at a few scenarios to practice our understanding of political rights. I'll give you a scenario and you see if you can identify which political right is being exercised or violated. First, Parvati's best friend, Natalie, is running for city council."}, {"video_title": "Political rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if a society permits some people to vote, but not others based on their race, sex, religion, or other characteristic, that society is infringing on the civil rights of those citizens by denying them their political rights. So let's take a look at a few scenarios to practice our understanding of political rights. I'll give you a scenario and you see if you can identify which political right is being exercised or violated. First, Parvati's best friend, Natalie, is running for city council. She wants to show her support, so she checks Natalie's name on the election ballot. Which right did Parvati exercise? If you said the right to vote, you're correct."}, {"video_title": "Political rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "First, Parvati's best friend, Natalie, is running for city council. She wants to show her support, so she checks Natalie's name on the election ballot. Which right did Parvati exercise? If you said the right to vote, you're correct. All right, next up. PG posts on her social media encouraging people to vote for the Democratic candidate for governor. An admissions officer at the public university PG got into is the brother of the Republican candidate."}, {"video_title": "Political rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you said the right to vote, you're correct. All right, next up. PG posts on her social media encouraging people to vote for the Democratic candidate for governor. An admissions officer at the public university PG got into is the brother of the Republican candidate. He rescinds PG's offer of admission based on her support for the Democratic candidate. Which political right did the admissions officer violate in this scenario? This is a violation of PG's right to political freedom of speech."}, {"video_title": "Political rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "An admissions officer at the public university PG got into is the brother of the Republican candidate. He rescinds PG's offer of admission based on her support for the Democratic candidate. Which political right did the admissions officer violate in this scenario? This is a violation of PG's right to political freedom of speech. Okay, last one. Spencer has been an avid hunter since he was a kid and is interested in joining the National Rifle Association. His boss, Charles, doesn't like guns and doesn't want Spencer to join the NRA."}, {"video_title": "Political rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is a violation of PG's right to political freedom of speech. Okay, last one. Spencer has been an avid hunter since he was a kid and is interested in joining the National Rifle Association. His boss, Charles, doesn't like guns and doesn't want Spencer to join the NRA. If Charles tries to prohibit Spencer from joining the NRA, which of Spencer's rights would he be violating? He would be violating Spencer's right to freedom of association, which means that he can join groups without fear of reprisal. Okay, that's all for now."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, the US claims 16 territories outside of the continental United States, although a few of those are in dispute with other countries, and only 5 of them are permanently inhabited. So where are these territories? Let's look at a map. Most of the territories are here in the Pacific. The inhabited territories here are Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Then there are two here in the Caribbean, the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. You may also be surprised to learn that the capital of the United States, Washington, is in a special geographic and political zone called the District of Columbia, which is also not a state."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Most of the territories are here in the Pacific. The inhabited territories here are Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Then there are two here in the Caribbean, the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. You may also be surprised to learn that the capital of the United States, Washington, is in a special geographic and political zone called the District of Columbia, which is also not a state. The most populous territory by far is Puerto Rico, with more than 3 million residents. Its population is greater than 19 of the US states, putting it just behind Utah but ahead of Iowa in numbers. The District of Columbia has more than 700,000 residents, putting it ahead of just two states in population."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You may also be surprised to learn that the capital of the United States, Washington, is in a special geographic and political zone called the District of Columbia, which is also not a state. The most populous territory by far is Puerto Rico, with more than 3 million residents. Its population is greater than 19 of the US states, putting it just behind Utah but ahead of Iowa in numbers. The District of Columbia has more than 700,000 residents, putting it ahead of just two states in population. The other four territories are much smaller, with between 50,000 and 200,000 residents. The citizenship status and voting rights of the people living in these territories might be different from residents of the states. Let's delve a little bit more into these differences."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The District of Columbia has more than 700,000 residents, putting it ahead of just two states in population. The other four territories are much smaller, with between 50,000 and 200,000 residents. The citizenship status and voting rights of the people living in these territories might be different from residents of the states. Let's delve a little bit more into these differences. Most people living in the American territories are granted US citizenship at birth, although that has not always been the case. Although white people born in the District of Columbia have had citizenship at birth from the creation of the district in 1790, the large Black population of the city didn't gain citizenship protections until the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Over the course of the 20th century, the residents of four of the other territories have gotten citizenship status by various means, starting with Puerto Rico by an Act of Congress in 1917."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's delve a little bit more into these differences. Most people living in the American territories are granted US citizenship at birth, although that has not always been the case. Although white people born in the District of Columbia have had citizenship at birth from the creation of the district in 1790, the large Black population of the city didn't gain citizenship protections until the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Over the course of the 20th century, the residents of four of the other territories have gotten citizenship status by various means, starting with Puerto Rico by an Act of Congress in 1917. The US Virgin Islands gained citizenship by congressional order in 1927. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act expanded the definition of who received US citizenship at birth to include Guam. And residents of the Northern Mariana Islands became citizens when their territory became a commonwealth in 1976."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Over the course of the 20th century, the residents of four of the other territories have gotten citizenship status by various means, starting with Puerto Rico by an Act of Congress in 1917. The US Virgin Islands gained citizenship by congressional order in 1927. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act expanded the definition of who received US citizenship at birth to include Guam. And residents of the Northern Mariana Islands became citizens when their territory became a commonwealth in 1976. The residents of American Samoa are currently US nationals, not US citizens. This means that they have the right to travel and live in the United States, and they're afforded protection by the United States when traveling abroad, but they don't qualify for other benefits of US citizenship, like the right to vote. But that might change soon."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And residents of the Northern Mariana Islands became citizens when their territory became a commonwealth in 1976. The residents of American Samoa are currently US nationals, not US citizens. This means that they have the right to travel and live in the United States, and they're afforded protection by the United States when traveling abroad, but they don't qualify for other benefits of US citizenship, like the right to vote. But that might change soon. Right now, a case which is seeking US citizenship for American Samoans, Fiti Samanu v. the United States, is making its way through the federal court system, so we may hear a ruling on this case this year. The citizens of the territories in Washington, DC, have many of the same citizenship rights and responsibilities as citizens of the states. Remember, because American Samoans are US nationals rather than citizens, their situation is a little bit different."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But that might change soon. Right now, a case which is seeking US citizenship for American Samoans, Fiti Samanu v. the United States, is making its way through the federal court system, so we may hear a ruling on this case this year. The citizens of the territories in Washington, DC, have many of the same citizenship rights and responsibilities as citizens of the states. Remember, because American Samoans are US nationals rather than citizens, their situation is a little bit different. So what I'm about to say does not apply to them. The citizens of the territories have the right to move freely within the United States without a passport. They also have the right to vote in presidential primaries, but not in presidential elections."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Remember, because American Samoans are US nationals rather than citizens, their situation is a little bit different. So what I'm about to say does not apply to them. The citizens of the territories have the right to move freely within the United States without a passport. They also have the right to vote in presidential primaries, but not in presidential elections. We'll talk more about voting rights in a sec, because DC is also a bit different in this regard. Citizens in the territories also have most of the same civil and political rights as the people in the states, and their responsibilities are also much the same. Although they don't have to pay federal income tax, they do have to pay other federal taxes, like Social Security and Medicare."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They also have the right to vote in presidential primaries, but not in presidential elections. We'll talk more about voting rights in a sec, because DC is also a bit different in this regard. Citizens in the territories also have most of the same civil and political rights as the people in the states, and their responsibilities are also much the same. Although they don't have to pay federal income tax, they do have to pay other federal taxes, like Social Security and Medicare. They also must defend the country when called upon, and obey federal laws and regulations. However, even though the citizens of the territories in Washington, DC, have to obey federal laws, pay federal taxes, and defend the country when called upon, they do not have any voting representation in Congress. Each of the territories has a delegate in the House of Representatives, but although those delegates may participate and debate and sit on committees, they may not cast votes."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Although they don't have to pay federal income tax, they do have to pay other federal taxes, like Social Security and Medicare. They also must defend the country when called upon, and obey federal laws and regulations. However, even though the citizens of the territories in Washington, DC, have to obey federal laws, pay federal taxes, and defend the country when called upon, they do not have any voting representation in Congress. Each of the territories has a delegate in the House of Representatives, but although those delegates may participate and debate and sit on committees, they may not cast votes. The citizens of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands can vote for their territorial governor, their delegate in the House, and in presidential primaries. The citizens of Washington, DC, can vote for their mayor and city council, although Congress has the authority to block any laws passed by that council if they disagree with them. DC citizens may vote in presidential elections as well."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Each of the territories has a delegate in the House of Representatives, but although those delegates may participate and debate and sit on committees, they may not cast votes. The citizens of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands can vote for their territorial governor, their delegate in the House, and in presidential primaries. The citizens of Washington, DC, can vote for their mayor and city council, although Congress has the authority to block any laws passed by that council if they disagree with them. DC citizens may vote in presidential elections as well. The 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1961, gave the district three votes in the Electoral College for the election of the president and the vice president. So what do you think about citizenship and voting rights in the territories and in the District of Columbia? How are they different from those of the citizens of the states?"}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in the US territories and District of Columbia   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "DC citizens may vote in presidential elections as well. The 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1961, gave the district three votes in the Electoral College for the election of the president and the vice president. So what do you think about citizenship and voting rights in the territories and in the District of Columbia? How are they different from those of the citizens of the states? And how are they similar? Why do you think they're different? And do you think they should be?"}, {"video_title": "Why study US history, government, and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The characters in American history all the way through are fascinating. Just human beings. They would make great just movie characters, period. Heroes, villains, people who rise to courage when they were otherwise pretty boring people. Look at Abraham Lincoln, for example. He failed miserably, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. And then he becomes the greatest president."}, {"video_title": "Why study US history, government, and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Heroes, villains, people who rise to courage when they were otherwise pretty boring people. Look at Abraham Lincoln, for example. He failed miserably, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. And then he becomes the greatest president. And when he's almost at the end of his... Well, he doesn't know it's the end of his life, but later in life after he's had his greatness, he says, I confess that I was like a cork in a stream. Well, if you're a regular person and you think my life feels without a purpose, you can think, well, the greatest president in America felt like his life was kind of bouncing around. And so that is an incredibly human connection to greatness."}, {"video_title": "Why study US history, government, and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then he becomes the greatest president. And when he's almost at the end of his... Well, he doesn't know it's the end of his life, but later in life after he's had his greatness, he says, I confess that I was like a cork in a stream. Well, if you're a regular person and you think my life feels without a purpose, you can think, well, the greatest president in America felt like his life was kind of bouncing around. And so that is an incredibly human connection to greatness. And we all need connections to greatness of whatever kind to inspire us. Because the questions today that America faces about freedom and liberty and what it means to be an American and how the power is distributed throughout our governments and our lives that affect us today were discussed and talked about and wrestled over all throughout American history. And it is a continuing experiment."}, {"video_title": "Why study US history, government, and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so that is an incredibly human connection to greatness. And we all need connections to greatness of whatever kind to inspire us. Because the questions today that America faces about freedom and liberty and what it means to be an American and how the power is distributed throughout our governments and our lives that affect us today were discussed and talked about and wrestled over all throughout American history. And it is a continuing experiment. And when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he said this new country that we're creating has to constantly refresh. Each new generation has to refresh their contact with the original ideals that the country was founded on. Otherwise, the country will fail."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1789-1830s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Who was considered a citizen? Did having citizenship mean that you had the right to vote? How did citizenship and voting rights change over time? So let's go back to the beginning when the US Constitution took effect in 1789. Shortly thereafter, Congress passed the first Federal Naturalization Act of 1790. Remember that naturalization is the process by which someone becomes a citizen. That act said that any free white person of good character could be a US citizen."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1789-1830s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's go back to the beginning when the US Constitution took effect in 1789. Shortly thereafter, Congress passed the first Federal Naturalization Act of 1790. Remember that naturalization is the process by which someone becomes a citizen. That act said that any free white person of good character could be a US citizen. They had to live in the United States for two years, later they changed it to five years, and in the state where they applied for citizenship for at least one year, and then take an oath to support the Constitution. Who did that include and who did it exclude? Any white man who wasn't an indentured servant, meaning someone who had sold a number of years of their labor for passage to the United States, or convicted of a crime, was eligible to become a citizen and therefore enjoy all of the protections listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1789-1830s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That act said that any free white person of good character could be a US citizen. They had to live in the United States for two years, later they changed it to five years, and in the state where they applied for citizenship for at least one year, and then take an oath to support the Constitution. Who did that include and who did it exclude? Any white man who wasn't an indentured servant, meaning someone who had sold a number of years of their labor for passage to the United States, or convicted of a crime, was eligible to become a citizen and therefore enjoy all of the protections listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Single or widowed white women could become citizens on their own. Married white women and the children of naturalized citizens also inherited citizenship from their husbands and fathers. This was an era when women and children were considered the property of the male head of household."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1789-1830s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Any white man who wasn't an indentured servant, meaning someone who had sold a number of years of their labor for passage to the United States, or convicted of a crime, was eligible to become a citizen and therefore enjoy all of the protections listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Single or widowed white women could become citizens on their own. Married white women and the children of naturalized citizens also inherited citizenship from their husbands and fathers. This was an era when women and children were considered the property of the male head of household. So their identity as citizens was tied to his. But enjoying all the protections listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't necessarily mean having the right to vote, because the right to vote was not listed in the Constitution. Having US citizenship didn't automatically mean that you could vote."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1789-1830s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This was an era when women and children were considered the property of the male head of household. So their identity as citizens was tied to his. But enjoying all the protections listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't necessarily mean having the right to vote, because the right to vote was not listed in the Constitution. Having US citizenship didn't automatically mean that you could vote. States control elections, not the federal government, and most states at this time had property requirements for voting. That means that to vote, a white man had to have a certain amount of money or land. This was based on the idea that only people who owned a stake in the community should be able to vote."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1789-1830s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Having US citizenship didn't automatically mean that you could vote. States control elections, not the federal government, and most states at this time had property requirements for voting. That means that to vote, a white man had to have a certain amount of money or land. This was based on the idea that only people who owned a stake in the community should be able to vote. So this limited the vote to wealthier white men. White women couldn't vote, even though they could be citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1790 excluded a lot of people who lived in the United States from being eligible for citizenship."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1789-1830s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This was based on the idea that only people who owned a stake in the community should be able to vote. So this limited the vote to wealthier white men. White women couldn't vote, even though they could be citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1790 excluded a lot of people who lived in the United States from being eligible for citizenship. Indigenous people were not eligible to become citizens. People of African descent, both those who were enslaved and those who were free, were not eligible to become citizens. Although some states did permit free black men to own property and vote if they met those property requirements."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1789-1830s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Naturalization Act of 1790 excluded a lot of people who lived in the United States from being eligible for citizenship. Indigenous people were not eligible to become citizens. People of African descent, both those who were enslaved and those who were free, were not eligible to become citizens. Although some states did permit free black men to own property and vote if they met those property requirements. That shows us another example of how voting rights and citizenship were not necessarily intertwined. However, over the course of the next 40 years or so, whiteness became more and more synonymous with voting rights in the United States. By the 1830s, almost all states had removed their property requirements for voting and instead permitted any free white man over the age of 21 to vote."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship in early America, 1789-1830s   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Although some states did permit free black men to own property and vote if they met those property requirements. That shows us another example of how voting rights and citizenship were not necessarily intertwined. However, over the course of the next 40 years or so, whiteness became more and more synonymous with voting rights in the United States. By the 1830s, almost all states had removed their property requirements for voting and instead permitted any free white man over the age of 21 to vote. And as state legislatures rewrote these laws, the states that had permitted property to black men to vote now outlawed them from doing so. Now, it's worth noting that at that time, a larger percentage of the population could vote in the United States than in anywhere else in the world, but voting became strictly the domain of white men. That's a quick overview of the first few decades of citizenship and voting rights in early America."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We know that there's a president who's the head of the executive branch, there's Congress, which is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and there's the judicial branch, which has the Supreme Court as its head of a whole court system that stretches throughout the United States. But how did the United States end up with this system? We frequently forget that the Constitutional Convention, which created this system we know today, happened in 1787. That was more than a decade after the Declaration of Independence. So there was this 11-year-plus period before the United States had its modern-day Constitution. And during that time, it fought the Revolutionary War, which it won in 1783, and tried out a completely different system of government called the Articles of Confederation, which we talked a little bit more about in another video. Now, the Articles of Confederation had a very strong sense of limited government."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That was more than a decade after the Declaration of Independence. So there was this 11-year-plus period before the United States had its modern-day Constitution. And during that time, it fought the Revolutionary War, which it won in 1783, and tried out a completely different system of government called the Articles of Confederation, which we talked a little bit more about in another video. Now, the Articles of Confederation had a very strong sense of limited government. In fact, you could think of the Articles of Confederation as being a little bit more like a loose confederation of states, where each state had one vote in the legislative branch, the branch that makes laws, and they had to really agree on most things, nine out of 13 for most legislation, and unanimous agreement for any kind of amendments to this system. And I think it's clear why the founders first went with this system of limited government, because they had just revolted against a monarchy. They thought of the states as being, in what they called, just kind of a league of friendship."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, the Articles of Confederation had a very strong sense of limited government. In fact, you could think of the Articles of Confederation as being a little bit more like a loose confederation of states, where each state had one vote in the legislative branch, the branch that makes laws, and they had to really agree on most things, nine out of 13 for most legislation, and unanimous agreement for any kind of amendments to this system. And I think it's clear why the founders first went with this system of limited government, because they had just revolted against a monarchy. They thought of the states as being, in what they called, just kind of a league of friendship. You could almost see it as being similar to the European Union today, independent nations who do some things together for foreign policy reasons and economic reasons. But by the late 1780s, it was becoming clear that the Articles of Confederation were not working. With such a weak central government, it was really hard to get things done."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They thought of the states as being, in what they called, just kind of a league of friendship. You could almost see it as being similar to the European Union today, independent nations who do some things together for foreign policy reasons and economic reasons. But by the late 1780s, it was becoming clear that the Articles of Confederation were not working. With such a weak central government, it was really hard to get things done. They couldn't raise taxes. They couldn't raise a military. Some states were even putting taxes on the goods of other states."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "With such a weak central government, it was really hard to get things done. They couldn't raise taxes. They couldn't raise a military. Some states were even putting taxes on the goods of other states. So in 1787, delegates from 12 of the 13 states, Rhode Island did not participate, because Rhode Island was not a big fan of central government, came together in Philadelphia in the same place where they had signed the Declaration of Independence to think about how to revise the Articles of Confederation. And some very notable figures were there. George Washington was one of them."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Some states were even putting taxes on the goods of other states. So in 1787, delegates from 12 of the 13 states, Rhode Island did not participate, because Rhode Island was not a big fan of central government, came together in Philadelphia in the same place where they had signed the Declaration of Independence to think about how to revise the Articles of Confederation. And some very notable figures were there. George Washington was one of them. See Ben Franklin over here, and James Madison. Although some people that you might have expected to be at the Constitutional Convention were not, namely Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were out of the country being diplomats at the time. So the delegates at the Constitutional Convention have a pretty difficult problem to solve."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "George Washington was one of them. See Ben Franklin over here, and James Madison. Although some people that you might have expected to be at the Constitutional Convention were not, namely Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were out of the country being diplomats at the time. So the delegates at the Constitutional Convention have a pretty difficult problem to solve. They want to have a stronger central government, one that can get things done, make sure the states play well together, raise armies, raise taxes, but they don't want a central government that is too strong, because they just escaped from monarchy. They don't want to recreate monarchy in the United States. So they're looking for a very delicate balance of a government strong enough to get things done, but not so strong as to promote tyranny."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the delegates at the Constitutional Convention have a pretty difficult problem to solve. They want to have a stronger central government, one that can get things done, make sure the states play well together, raise armies, raise taxes, but they don't want a central government that is too strong, because they just escaped from monarchy. They don't want to recreate monarchy in the United States. So they're looking for a very delicate balance of a government strong enough to get things done, but not so strong as to promote tyranny. Now even though the delegates were supposed to be revising the Articles of Confederation, some people had in secret been considering completely throwing out the Articles of Confederation and starting anew. But one of the biggest hurdles they had to solve was what would a new sort of legislature look like? So the Virginia delegates suggested a plan for the legislature, it's the law-making body, that would be bicameral, means two room or two house, from bi meaning two, and camara, Latin for room."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they're looking for a very delicate balance of a government strong enough to get things done, but not so strong as to promote tyranny. Now even though the delegates were supposed to be revising the Articles of Confederation, some people had in secret been considering completely throwing out the Articles of Confederation and starting anew. But one of the biggest hurdles they had to solve was what would a new sort of legislature look like? So the Virginia delegates suggested a plan for the legislature, it's the law-making body, that would be bicameral, means two room or two house, from bi meaning two, and camara, Latin for room. And their idea was that there would be a lower house, similar to the House of Commons in English Parliament, that would be directly elected. It is individuals would vote for the representatives, but the number of representatives that each state would get would be decided by their population. Now Virginia was the largest state by population by far, and so this plan would have worked out pretty well for them because they would have gotten the largest proportion of representatives."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the Virginia delegates suggested a plan for the legislature, it's the law-making body, that would be bicameral, means two room or two house, from bi meaning two, and camara, Latin for room. And their idea was that there would be a lower house, similar to the House of Commons in English Parliament, that would be directly elected. It is individuals would vote for the representatives, but the number of representatives that each state would get would be decided by their population. Now Virginia was the largest state by population by far, and so this plan would have worked out pretty well for them because they would have gotten the largest proportion of representatives. Small states like Delaware and Georgia, Rhode Island, would have very few representatives indeed comparatively. They also wanted to have an upper house, similar to the House of Lords in the British Parliament, which would be appointed by state legislatures. But just like the lower house, the number of representatives would also be determined by population."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now Virginia was the largest state by population by far, and so this plan would have worked out pretty well for them because they would have gotten the largest proportion of representatives. Small states like Delaware and Georgia, Rhode Island, would have very few representatives indeed comparatively. They also wanted to have an upper house, similar to the House of Lords in the British Parliament, which would be appointed by state legislatures. But just like the lower house, the number of representatives would also be determined by population. Now as you can imagine, the small states were not big fans of having representation based just on population, so they came back with a different plan. This was called the New Jersey Plan. So the little states said, all right, the Virginia Plan gives way too much power to the big states."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But just like the lower house, the number of representatives would also be determined by population. Now as you can imagine, the small states were not big fans of having representation based just on population, so they came back with a different plan. This was called the New Jersey Plan. So the little states said, all right, the Virginia Plan gives way too much power to the big states. We want an equal voice in legislation. So the New Jersey Plan, much like the Articles of Confederation, gave one vote to each of the states so that the small states would have the same representation in Congress as the large states. And their plan was for a single chamber or a unicameral legislature."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the little states said, all right, the Virginia Plan gives way too much power to the big states. We want an equal voice in legislation. So the New Jersey Plan, much like the Articles of Confederation, gave one vote to each of the states so that the small states would have the same representation in Congress as the large states. And their plan was for a single chamber or a unicameral legislature. So this really wasn't much different from the Articles of Confederation at all. So how did the delegates resolve this issue of how to balance the voices of large states with large populations with small states that had small populations? Because in a situation where all states have an equal number of votes, like in the New Jersey Plan, the 60,000 residents of Delaware could have as much say as the almost 700,000 residents of Virginia, meaning that the people who lived in Delaware were, in effect, more powerful."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And their plan was for a single chamber or a unicameral legislature. So this really wasn't much different from the Articles of Confederation at all. So how did the delegates resolve this issue of how to balance the voices of large states with large populations with small states that had small populations? Because in a situation where all states have an equal number of votes, like in the New Jersey Plan, the 60,000 residents of Delaware could have as much say as the almost 700,000 residents of Virginia, meaning that the people who lived in Delaware were, in effect, more powerful. But at the same time, you wouldn't want it so that people living in the larger states could get their way all the time. What if the people in Delaware had a very legitimate concern that those in Virginia didn't share? It would be impossible to get all of these states to agree to amend or replace the Articles of Confederation if some of them felt like their interests weren't being taken into account at all."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Because in a situation where all states have an equal number of votes, like in the New Jersey Plan, the 60,000 residents of Delaware could have as much say as the almost 700,000 residents of Virginia, meaning that the people who lived in Delaware were, in effect, more powerful. But at the same time, you wouldn't want it so that people living in the larger states could get their way all the time. What if the people in Delaware had a very legitimate concern that those in Virginia didn't share? It would be impossible to get all of these states to agree to amend or replace the Articles of Confederation if some of them felt like their interests weren't being taken into account at all. So to solve this issue of how to weight the representation of the states, the delegates came up with what's called the Great Compromise, or sometimes the Connecticut Compromise. And in a way, what they did was combine these two plans. They made a legislative branch that was bicameral, two house, with a lower and an upper house."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It would be impossible to get all of these states to agree to amend or replace the Articles of Confederation if some of them felt like their interests weren't being taken into account at all. So to solve this issue of how to weight the representation of the states, the delegates came up with what's called the Great Compromise, or sometimes the Connecticut Compromise. And in a way, what they did was combine these two plans. They made a legislative branch that was bicameral, two house, with a lower and an upper house. And this lower house would become the House of Representatives, where each state would have representatives in proportion to their population. So states that have large populations have more representatives. States with small populations have fewer representatives."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They made a legislative branch that was bicameral, two house, with a lower and an upper house. And this lower house would become the House of Representatives, where each state would have representatives in proportion to their population. So states that have large populations have more representatives. States with small populations have fewer representatives. And those representatives would be directly elected by the people. Now, and this time, the people was a fairly small proportion. To vote in the 1790s, you had to be a white man with fairly significant property."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "States with small populations have fewer representatives. And those representatives would be directly elected by the people. Now, and this time, the people was a fairly small proportion. To vote in the 1790s, you had to be a white man with fairly significant property. So it wasn't full suffrage, it wasn't even full suffrage for white men, but these folks were elected by vote. Then this upper house would be the Senate. And in the Senate, each state would have two senators, regardless of their size, so that as legislation moved through Congress, first from the lower house, where it would be approved, and if approved, sent to the upper house, there all states would have an equal voice in whether legislation was passed."}, {"video_title": "The Constitutional Convention   Period 3 1754-1800   AP US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To vote in the 1790s, you had to be a white man with fairly significant property. So it wasn't full suffrage, it wasn't even full suffrage for white men, but these folks were elected by vote. Then this upper house would be the Senate. And in the Senate, each state would have two senators, regardless of their size, so that as legislation moved through Congress, first from the lower house, where it would be approved, and if approved, sent to the upper house, there all states would have an equal voice in whether legislation was passed. And in this upper house, the senators would not be directly elected, but rather appointed by state legislatures. And in fact, senators were appointed into the 20th century. Now, the Great Compromise wasn't the only compromise made at the Constitutional Convention."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Today we're learning more about Baker versus Carr, a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1962. Baker versus Carr grappled with an incredibly important issue, whether one person's vote is equal to another person's vote. That seems pretty straightforward to us now, but as we'll learn in this video, before Baker versus Carr, it wasn't always the case. To learn more, I talked with two experts. Theodore Olson is a partner at the law firm of Gibson Dunn and served as Solicitor General of the United States from 2001 to 2004. Guy Charles is the Edward and Ellen Schwarzman Professor of Law and the founding director of the Duke Law Center on Law, Race, and Politics. Mr. Olson, could you kind of set the stage for us?"}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more, I talked with two experts. Theodore Olson is a partner at the law firm of Gibson Dunn and served as Solicitor General of the United States from 2001 to 2004. Guy Charles is the Edward and Ellen Schwarzman Professor of Law and the founding director of the Duke Law Center on Law, Race, and Politics. Mr. Olson, could you kind of set the stage for us? What was the overall historical and political context that led up to the issues of Baker versus Carr? Well, it is a very, very important decision. Earl Warren, who was Chief Justice at the time the case was decided, later said that it was one of the most important decisions of his tenure as Chief Justice."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Mr. Olson, could you kind of set the stage for us? What was the overall historical and political context that led up to the issues of Baker versus Carr? Well, it is a very, very important decision. Earl Warren, who was Chief Justice at the time the case was decided, later said that it was one of the most important decisions of his tenure as Chief Justice. Prior to the decision in Baker versus Carr and a couple of subsequent decisions, legislatures throughout the country were organized in a way based upon geography and other considerations rather than population. We take the phrase one person, one vote for granted now, but prior to that time, rural counties particularly all over the United States dominated state legislators and individuals in cities particularly might be electing one representative when a rural county or a rural geographical area much smaller in terms of population would also have the same amount of votes. So there was a disproportionate weight to smaller communities based upon population which had very significant political consequences with respect to allocation of money and resources and the like."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Earl Warren, who was Chief Justice at the time the case was decided, later said that it was one of the most important decisions of his tenure as Chief Justice. Prior to the decision in Baker versus Carr and a couple of subsequent decisions, legislatures throughout the country were organized in a way based upon geography and other considerations rather than population. We take the phrase one person, one vote for granted now, but prior to that time, rural counties particularly all over the United States dominated state legislators and individuals in cities particularly might be electing one representative when a rural county or a rural geographical area much smaller in terms of population would also have the same amount of votes. So there was a disproportionate weight to smaller communities based upon population which had very significant political consequences with respect to allocation of money and resources and the like. So in the US, we draw lines as a way of aggregating voters together so that way we can elect people to various representative bodies. So the process of doing so, drawing the lines is called, depending on when it's done, reapportionment or redistricting or districting. So we draw lines through districts for the purposes of representation."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So there was a disproportionate weight to smaller communities based upon population which had very significant political consequences with respect to allocation of money and resources and the like. So in the US, we draw lines as a way of aggregating voters together so that way we can elect people to various representative bodies. So the process of doing so, drawing the lines is called, depending on when it's done, reapportionment or redistricting or districting. So we draw lines through districts for the purposes of representation. And that has been the practice in the US for basically time immemorial, the way of districting for the purposes of representation. While many states, especially in the late 19th century to early 20th century, refused, they drew the lines, in the case of Tennessee, they drew the lines in 1901, that was the last time they reapportioned where they counted the number of voters in the state and then they decided how many voters were going to be in each particular district. So a lot of time has passed from 1901 through when the case was decided in 1961."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So we draw lines through districts for the purposes of representation. And that has been the practice in the US for basically time immemorial, the way of districting for the purposes of representation. While many states, especially in the late 19th century to early 20th century, refused, they drew the lines, in the case of Tennessee, they drew the lines in 1901, that was the last time they reapportioned where they counted the number of voters in the state and then they decided how many voters were going to be in each particular district. So a lot of time has passed from 1901 through when the case was decided in 1961. And many people moved from the rural areas to the urban areas or from the rural areas to the suburbs and the districts were just not equal. There weren't the same number of voters in each particular district. So this case took place originally in Tennessee and was brought by a man named Charles Baker."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So a lot of time has passed from 1901 through when the case was decided in 1961. And many people moved from the rural areas to the urban areas or from the rural areas to the suburbs and the districts were just not equal. There weren't the same number of voters in each particular district. So this case took place originally in Tennessee and was brought by a man named Charles Baker. So who was Charles Baker and why did he object to how districting was done in Tennessee? Well, he was among a group of citizens in a way, like many other Supreme Court cases, it's an accident that his name is the one by which we remember the case. So he came together along with some lawyers and other citizens in this Tennessee area and brought the case because of they listed the participants as plaintiffs alphabetically."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this case took place originally in Tennessee and was brought by a man named Charles Baker. So who was Charles Baker and why did he object to how districting was done in Tennessee? Well, he was among a group of citizens in a way, like many other Supreme Court cases, it's an accident that his name is the one by which we remember the case. So he came together along with some lawyers and other citizens in this Tennessee area and brought the case because of they listed the participants as plaintiffs alphabetically. Mr. Baker was the first one on the list and he became the plaintiff. There were a group of citizens in Tennessee. He was on the board of a judicial body in Tennessee, but he was among several citizens who objected to the way the state legislature was apportioned."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So he came together along with some lawyers and other citizens in this Tennessee area and brought the case because of they listed the participants as plaintiffs alphabetically. Mr. Baker was the first one on the list and he became the plaintiff. There were a group of citizens in Tennessee. He was on the board of a judicial body in Tennessee, but he was among several citizens who objected to the way the state legislature was apportioned. Suppose that we have a classroom, I'd say we have an AP history class and we're deciding I wanna take the class out to dinner. We're making two decisions, a seafood place or a steak place. So let's suppose that we have 10 people in the class and we have three districts."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He was on the board of a judicial body in Tennessee, but he was among several citizens who objected to the way the state legislature was apportioned. Suppose that we have a classroom, I'd say we have an AP history class and we're deciding I wanna take the class out to dinner. We're making two decisions, a seafood place or a steak place. So let's suppose that we have 10 people in the class and we have three districts. So we're gonna make it, we're gonna decide on the basis of the decisions of those three districts. Okay, so we've got one district of two people who like seafood, another district of two others who like seafood and a district of six people who like steak. But we're gonna decide on the basis of the votes of each of the districts and then we're gonna, and the outcome, the majority of the votes of the district will decide the outcome."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's suppose that we have 10 people in the class and we have three districts. So we're gonna make it, we're gonna decide on the basis of the decisions of those three districts. Okay, so we've got one district of two people who like seafood, another district of two others who like seafood and a district of six people who like steak. But we're gonna decide on the basis of the votes of each of the districts and then we're gonna, and the outcome, the majority of the votes of the district will decide the outcome. So remember the first district had two people and both of those people like seafood. Our second district also had two people and both of those like seafood and our third district had six people and those six like steak. Now on the basis of the decision of the district, right, so each district counts for one vote, seafood wins two to one, all right."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But we're gonna decide on the basis of the votes of each of the districts and then we're gonna, and the outcome, the majority of the votes of the district will decide the outcome. So remember the first district had two people and both of those people like seafood. Our second district also had two people and both of those like seafood and our third district had six people and those six like steak. Now on the basis of the decision of the district, right, so each district counts for one vote, seafood wins two to one, all right. But if you look at the total number of people and the total preferences, there are actually six people who like steak and four people who like seafood. So really the decision should be in favor of steak as the majority of the people or the voters in that classroom preferred steak over seafood. But we can rejigger that outcome by just dividing the people into districts and dividing them into unequal districts and then saying each district gets one vote."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now on the basis of the decision of the district, right, so each district counts for one vote, seafood wins two to one, all right. But if you look at the total number of people and the total preferences, there are actually six people who like steak and four people who like seafood. So really the decision should be in favor of steak as the majority of the people or the voters in that classroom preferred steak over seafood. But we can rejigger that outcome by just dividing the people into districts and dividing them into unequal districts and then saying each district gets one vote. Well for all intents and purposes, this is exactly what Tennessee had done. They basically divided the state into districts so that way you can elect representatives from that district. But some districts only had, let's say 100 people and others had 1,000 people and some had 400, some had 10,000."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But we can rejigger that outcome by just dividing the people into districts and dividing them into unequal districts and then saying each district gets one vote. Well for all intents and purposes, this is exactly what Tennessee had done. They basically divided the state into districts so that way you can elect representatives from that district. But some districts only had, let's say 100 people and others had 1,000 people and some had 400, some had 10,000. I'm making up the numbers here but just to give you an example of what the disparities were like. But each counted essentially as one. Each district had one vote even though they weren't equal in terms of the number of people that were in the districts."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But some districts only had, let's say 100 people and others had 1,000 people and some had 400, some had 10,000. I'm making up the numbers here but just to give you an example of what the disparities were like. But each counted essentially as one. Each district had one vote even though they weren't equal in terms of the number of people that were in the districts. When a student comes to me and says, well wait a minute, there are many more people here who prefer steak, it's a majority. I'm not going to change the system because the system reflects my preferences and it was the same thing in Tennessee. The state legislature did not have the incentive to change the system because if they did, they would lose their seats."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Each district had one vote even though they weren't equal in terms of the number of people that were in the districts. When a student comes to me and says, well wait a minute, there are many more people here who prefer steak, it's a majority. I'm not going to change the system because the system reflects my preferences and it was the same thing in Tennessee. The state legislature did not have the incentive to change the system because if they did, they would lose their seats. So in Supreme Court cases, of course, the Supreme Court is turning to the Constitution for its interpretation. So what does the Constitution say about apportioning representatives? Does it make any mention of how districts are supposed to be drawn?"}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The state legislature did not have the incentive to change the system because if they did, they would lose their seats. So in Supreme Court cases, of course, the Supreme Court is turning to the Constitution for its interpretation. So what does the Constitution say about apportioning representatives? Does it make any mention of how districts are supposed to be drawn? It does not. It's very interesting that our Constitution, as everyone knows, gives two senators for each state and then apportions the House of Representatives by district which is required to be redetermined every 10 years after the census. But prior to Baker versus Carr, there was very little regard to the fact that some districts were more populous than other districts which meant that an individual voter in a populous district who had the same amount of, had a vote that was diluted in a sense that he shared that vote or that weight of his vote with many more persons."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Does it make any mention of how districts are supposed to be drawn? It does not. It's very interesting that our Constitution, as everyone knows, gives two senators for each state and then apportions the House of Representatives by district which is required to be redetermined every 10 years after the census. But prior to Baker versus Carr, there was very little regard to the fact that some districts were more populous than other districts which meant that an individual voter in a populous district who had the same amount of, had a vote that was diluted in a sense that he shared that vote or that weight of his vote with many more persons. And this was rampant all over the United States. In California, Los Angeles County had, which was 40% of the population of the state of California, had one representative because it was a county and it had lots of people in it. And then there were three smaller counties who had very, very few people, maybe had 10 or 15,000 people in the county and they each had one vote as well."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But prior to Baker versus Carr, there was very little regard to the fact that some districts were more populous than other districts which meant that an individual voter in a populous district who had the same amount of, had a vote that was diluted in a sense that he shared that vote or that weight of his vote with many more persons. And this was rampant all over the United States. In California, Los Angeles County had, which was 40% of the population of the state of California, had one representative because it was a county and it had lots of people in it. And then there were three smaller counties who had very, very few people, maybe had 10 or 15,000 people in the county and they each had one vote as well. Okay, so Charles Baker takes this case to the courts and then what happens? How does this case make its way through the courts? Well, the one thing to think about, the reason why Baker versus Carr is such an important case, we have to remember that the federal courts in particular, the United States Supreme Court, had said in a case called Cole Grove versus Green, look, we, the federal courts, are not going to involve ourselves in any of these redistricting type cases."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then there were three smaller counties who had very, very few people, maybe had 10 or 15,000 people in the county and they each had one vote as well. Okay, so Charles Baker takes this case to the courts and then what happens? How does this case make its way through the courts? Well, the one thing to think about, the reason why Baker versus Carr is such an important case, we have to remember that the federal courts in particular, the United States Supreme Court, had said in a case called Cole Grove versus Green, look, we, the federal courts, are not going to involve ourselves in any of these redistricting type cases. We don't wanna have anything to do with them. We don't believe we have the power to hear them. So in 46, the court said, we don't think we have the power to hear these cases."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the one thing to think about, the reason why Baker versus Carr is such an important case, we have to remember that the federal courts in particular, the United States Supreme Court, had said in a case called Cole Grove versus Green, look, we, the federal courts, are not going to involve ourselves in any of these redistricting type cases. We don't wanna have anything to do with them. We don't believe we have the power to hear them. So in 46, the court said, we don't think we have the power to hear these cases. And no matter what happens, those are cases that belong to the political process. Those are not cases that belong in the federal courts and in large part, an important part, because we don't think the Constitution has anything to say about those cases. So when it got to the Supreme Court, again, in Baker versus Carr, the question was whether the court would reverse that earlier decision and decide, this is something that we, as a court, can deal with, as opposed to something that must remain in the political realm."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in 46, the court said, we don't think we have the power to hear these cases. And no matter what happens, those are cases that belong to the political process. Those are not cases that belong in the federal courts and in large part, an important part, because we don't think the Constitution has anything to say about those cases. So when it got to the Supreme Court, again, in Baker versus Carr, the question was whether the court would reverse that earlier decision and decide, this is something that we, as a court, can deal with, as opposed to something that must remain in the political realm. And the case was argued twice in April of 1961. And again, in October of 1961, the court set it for re-argument because the first time it was argued, one of the justices was undecided and they were divided four to four and they decided to set it for re-argument again. And when the case was then decided after the second argument, the court ruled six to two."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So when it got to the Supreme Court, again, in Baker versus Carr, the question was whether the court would reverse that earlier decision and decide, this is something that we, as a court, can deal with, as opposed to something that must remain in the political realm. And the case was argued twice in April of 1961. And again, in October of 1961, the court set it for re-argument because the first time it was argued, one of the justices was undecided and they were divided four to four and they decided to set it for re-argument again. And when the case was then decided after the second argument, the court ruled six to two. One of the justices became disabled at the end of the deliberation. So it was only eight rather than nine, but they decided six to two. The narrow, relatively narrow question, not one person, one vote, but the narrow question, is this something that the constitution gives us permission to decide?"}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And when the case was then decided after the second argument, the court ruled six to two. One of the justices became disabled at the end of the deliberation. So it was only eight rather than nine, but they decided six to two. The narrow, relatively narrow question, not one person, one vote, but the narrow question, is this something that the constitution gives us permission to decide? And reciting the 14th Amendment to the constitution, which contains the well-known due process and equal protection clause, the court in Baker versus Carr decided, we can look at the constitution, discern from the equal protection clause that there is a due process clause, but mostly the equal protection clause. There is a basis for us to decide that it might violate an individual's constitutional right to equal protection of the laws if they're placed in a political situation where their vote counts less than someone else's vote. And so that's the way that the court got around that question and the technical legal term is to say that these cases are justiciable, which means that courts can hear them, that the federal courts have the power to decide these types of cases."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The narrow, relatively narrow question, not one person, one vote, but the narrow question, is this something that the constitution gives us permission to decide? And reciting the 14th Amendment to the constitution, which contains the well-known due process and equal protection clause, the court in Baker versus Carr decided, we can look at the constitution, discern from the equal protection clause that there is a due process clause, but mostly the equal protection clause. There is a basis for us to decide that it might violate an individual's constitutional right to equal protection of the laws if they're placed in a political situation where their vote counts less than someone else's vote. And so that's the way that the court got around that question and the technical legal term is to say that these cases are justiciable, which means that courts can hear them, that the federal courts have the power to decide these types of cases. Now, the court did not decide the second question in Baker versus Carr, which is, okay, suppose that that is true, right, which if the court says it, so it is now true, that federal courts do have the power to make those decisions. How do we determine, what is the standard that we're going to use to determine whether the constitution is violated? And that question, the court put off to the side, the court said something to the effect that, look, we know that there are standards, they are available, what we're deciding now is that we have the power because the Equal Protection Clause, in fact, means that the state can't draw the lines that are so malapportioned that they undermine the equality of voters."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so that's the way that the court got around that question and the technical legal term is to say that these cases are justiciable, which means that courts can hear them, that the federal courts have the power to decide these types of cases. Now, the court did not decide the second question in Baker versus Carr, which is, okay, suppose that that is true, right, which if the court says it, so it is now true, that federal courts do have the power to make those decisions. How do we determine, what is the standard that we're going to use to determine whether the constitution is violated? And that question, the court put off to the side, the court said something to the effect that, look, we know that there are standards, they are available, what we're deciding now is that we have the power because the Equal Protection Clause, in fact, means that the state can't draw the lines that are so malapportioned that they undermine the equality of voters. Baker versus Carr says that the courts then can rule on redistricting. Did this bring in a flood of cases about redistricting? It did."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that question, the court put off to the side, the court said something to the effect that, look, we know that there are standards, they are available, what we're deciding now is that we have the power because the Equal Protection Clause, in fact, means that the state can't draw the lines that are so malapportioned that they undermine the equality of voters. Baker versus Carr says that the courts then can rule on redistricting. Did this bring in a flood of cases about redistricting? It did. Once the court decided that this was fair game, that this was appropriate for courts to consider whether or not disparities in voting power as a result of packing people into different districts in different ways, constituted a violation of the constitution. Then in a relatively short term by Supreme Court standards in 1963 and 1964 and other decisions that all came about before the end of the 60s, the court pronounced in case after case that one person, one vote did indeed was required by the constitution. So Baker versus Carr opened the door for a stream of decisions from the Supreme Court that put into our constitutional fabric the concept of one person, one vote, which changed probably more than anything the structure of our political government in the United States."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It did. Once the court decided that this was fair game, that this was appropriate for courts to consider whether or not disparities in voting power as a result of packing people into different districts in different ways, constituted a violation of the constitution. Then in a relatively short term by Supreme Court standards in 1963 and 1964 and other decisions that all came about before the end of the 60s, the court pronounced in case after case that one person, one vote did indeed was required by the constitution. So Baker versus Carr opened the door for a stream of decisions from the Supreme Court that put into our constitutional fabric the concept of one person, one vote, which changed probably more than anything the structure of our political government in the United States. Do you think that our election system today conforms to the standard of one person, one vote? Well, we probably haven't solved all of the problems, but compared to where we were in 1961 before Baker versus Carr, we've really crossed that Rubicon. Most districts are relatively equal."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So Baker versus Carr opened the door for a stream of decisions from the Supreme Court that put into our constitutional fabric the concept of one person, one vote, which changed probably more than anything the structure of our political government in the United States. Do you think that our election system today conforms to the standard of one person, one vote? Well, we probably haven't solved all of the problems, but compared to where we were in 1961 before Baker versus Carr, we've really crossed that Rubicon. Most districts are relatively equal. There is a census every 10 years so that we can count the number of persons in districts. There are still cases that come along. There are cases involving the allocation of persons by race and whether there are systems in place that discriminate on the basis of race."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Most districts are relatively equal. There is a census every 10 years so that we can count the number of persons in districts. There are still cases that come along. There are cases involving the allocation of persons by race and whether there are systems in place that discriminate on the basis of race. Some states have passed laws requiring voters to present photo identification when the voter goes to vote at the polling place. And one objection to the voter photo ID is that it's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. It's a violation of the idea of equality that voters are not being treated equally vis-a-vis one another, because some voters have voter IDs and others have a hard time getting them for whatever reasons."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There are cases involving the allocation of persons by race and whether there are systems in place that discriminate on the basis of race. Some states have passed laws requiring voters to present photo identification when the voter goes to vote at the polling place. And one objection to the voter photo ID is that it's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. It's a violation of the idea of equality that voters are not being treated equally vis-a-vis one another, because some voters have voter IDs and others have a hard time getting them for whatever reasons. And there might be racial disproportionate effects, there might be class effects, there might be gender effects, and so this raises a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. And these are the types of arguments that are now available to someone challenging the problem of inequality in voting post-after Baker v. Carr that were not available before Baker versus Carr. And to fully answer your question, some people might say, look, we don't fully have one person, one vote because we have a lot of laws that treat voters unequally."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's a violation of the idea of equality that voters are not being treated equally vis-a-vis one another, because some voters have voter IDs and others have a hard time getting them for whatever reasons. And there might be racial disproportionate effects, there might be class effects, there might be gender effects, and so this raises a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. And these are the types of arguments that are now available to someone challenging the problem of inequality in voting post-after Baker v. Carr that were not available before Baker versus Carr. And to fully answer your question, some people might say, look, we don't fully have one person, one vote because we have a lot of laws that treat voters unequally. If the political party A controls both houses of a legislature in a particular state and the person who's in the governor's mansion, then those lines can be drawn to favor that political party so that you might have situations where a political party maybe only has 40% of the registered voters in a particular state, but maybe 55% of the elected representatives. That's called political gerrymandering. And those issues have come before the court."}, {"video_title": "Baker v. Carr   Interactions among branches of government   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And to fully answer your question, some people might say, look, we don't fully have one person, one vote because we have a lot of laws that treat voters unequally. If the political party A controls both houses of a legislature in a particular state and the person who's in the governor's mansion, then those lines can be drawn to favor that political party so that you might have situations where a political party maybe only has 40% of the registered voters in a particular state, but maybe 55% of the elected representatives. That's called political gerrymandering. And those issues have come before the court. We still haven't achieved the type of equality that was promised by the Baker line of cases. So we've learned that in Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court ruled that redistricting was a justiciable issue or something that the federal courts could decide because ensuring that votes have equal weight is important to ensuring equal protection under the law. The standard of one person, one vote opened the floodgate for cases about equality of representation in districting, which are still being litigated at the Supreme Court today."}, {"video_title": "What is citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In this video, we're going to talk about two of those definitions. One is the legal definition, the status of having citizenship. A person has citizenship as a member of a state, which gives them rights, responsibilities, and privileges. A citizen of the United States is entitled to the protections granted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, like freedom of speech. There are two paths to citizenship. People are either born citizens because their parents were citizens or because they were born on US soil, or they can become naturalized citizens. We'll talk more in other videos about the process to become a citizen, but for now, just know that naturalization is the legal process by which a foreign citizen or national can become a US citizen."}, {"video_title": "What is citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A citizen of the United States is entitled to the protections granted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, like freedom of speech. There are two paths to citizenship. People are either born citizens because their parents were citizens or because they were born on US soil, or they can become naturalized citizens. We'll talk more in other videos about the process to become a citizen, but for now, just know that naturalization is the legal process by which a foreign citizen or national can become a US citizen. The other definition of citizenship I wanna talk about here is not just the legal status of having citizenship, but the practice of active citizenship. You practice good citizenship by being an informed and active member of a political community. So what does it mean to be a good citizen?"}, {"video_title": "What is citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We'll talk more in other videos about the process to become a citizen, but for now, just know that naturalization is the legal process by which a foreign citizen or national can become a US citizen. The other definition of citizenship I wanna talk about here is not just the legal status of having citizenship, but the practice of active citizenship. You practice good citizenship by being an informed and active member of a political community. So what does it mean to be a good citizen? There are a few aspects of good citizenship. First, a good citizen is empowered. That means that they exercise their rights and believe that they can make a difference by doing so."}, {"video_title": "What is citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what does it mean to be a good citizen? There are a few aspects of good citizenship. First, a good citizen is empowered. That means that they exercise their rights and believe that they can make a difference by doing so. They don't say, nah, I'm not gonna do anything. It wouldn't make a difference anyway. A good citizen is also community-minded."}, {"video_title": "What is citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That means that they exercise their rights and believe that they can make a difference by doing so. They don't say, nah, I'm not gonna do anything. It wouldn't make a difference anyway. A good citizen is also community-minded. They feel a sense of responsibility for their communities and they wanna help them be the best that they can be. They're also inclusive. And by that, I mean that they wanna do what's best for everyone in their community, not just what would be most beneficial to themselves."}, {"video_title": "What is citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A good citizen is also community-minded. They feel a sense of responsibility for their communities and they wanna help them be the best that they can be. They're also inclusive. And by that, I mean that they wanna do what's best for everyone in their community, not just what would be most beneficial to themselves. They include multiple viewpoints and stand up for the rights of others. And lastly, a good citizen is informed. They know how the government works."}, {"video_title": "Civic life, private life, politics, and government   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In this video, we're going to talk about how people can interact with, influence, and participate in society. When you do so, you're participating in civic life, which is distinct from your private life. Private life includes all the ways that you pursue happiness through relationships, hobbies, or your job, that is, if you're not a member of government. Civic life includes all the ways that you might take part in solving the problems of your community, whether that's by volunteering in civil society, making rules or laws, or serving in a government body, whether that's the school council or the U.S. Senate. So, if you like playing video games, playing for fun is part of your private life. But if you joined a group petitioning for more representation of diverse characters in video games, you'd be entering into civic life. Then you're not just doing things that make you happy individually, you're striving to have an effect on the lives of others."}, {"video_title": "Civic life, private life, politics, and government   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Civic life includes all the ways that you might take part in solving the problems of your community, whether that's by volunteering in civil society, making rules or laws, or serving in a government body, whether that's the school council or the U.S. Senate. So, if you like playing video games, playing for fun is part of your private life. But if you joined a group petitioning for more representation of diverse characters in video games, you'd be entering into civic life. Then you're not just doing things that make you happy individually, you're striving to have an effect on the lives of others. So when you step into civic life, you will become involved with politics and government. Although you often hear them lumped together, they're not actually the same thing. You could say that politics is something that you do, an action."}, {"video_title": "Civic life, private life, politics, and government   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then you're not just doing things that make you happy individually, you're striving to have an effect on the lives of others. So when you step into civic life, you will become involved with politics and government. Although you often hear them lumped together, they're not actually the same thing. You could say that politics is something that you do, an action. Politics encompasses all the ways that people reach agreements in a group by negotiating, compromising, or voting. And those people might not agree with each other, but through the political process, they agree to be bound by the rules that they've negotiated together. So on the large scale, politics describes both how Congress debates bills and how you and your brother decide who does the dishes."}, {"video_title": "Civic life, private life, politics, and government   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You could say that politics is something that you do, an action. Politics encompasses all the ways that people reach agreements in a group by negotiating, compromising, or voting. And those people might not agree with each other, but through the political process, they agree to be bound by the rules that they've negotiated together. So on the large scale, politics describes both how Congress debates bills and how you and your brother decide who does the dishes. Then there's government. Government is a noun, and it describes both the institutions, like the Supreme Court or the City Council, which make and enforce laws, as well as the people who serve in those institutions. So government could describe both FIFA, the international governing body for soccer, as well as the referee, whose job it is to enforce the rules that soccer teams and players agree to abide by."}, {"video_title": "Civic life, private life, politics, and government   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So on the large scale, politics describes both how Congress debates bills and how you and your brother decide who does the dishes. Then there's government. Government is a noun, and it describes both the institutions, like the Supreme Court or the City Council, which make and enforce laws, as well as the people who serve in those institutions. So government could describe both FIFA, the international governing body for soccer, as well as the referee, whose job it is to enforce the rules that soccer teams and players agree to abide by. Okay, so now that you've learned about civic life, private life, politics, and government, here's a pop quiz. I'm gonna give you a few scenarios and you see if you can match them to the correct term. First up, AILA's church provides food and shelter for the homeless community during the winter to keep them out of the cold."}, {"video_title": "Civic life, private life, politics, and government   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So government could describe both FIFA, the international governing body for soccer, as well as the referee, whose job it is to enforce the rules that soccer teams and players agree to abide by. Okay, so now that you've learned about civic life, private life, politics, and government, here's a pop quiz. I'm gonna give you a few scenarios and you see if you can match them to the correct term. First up, AILA's church provides food and shelter for the homeless community during the winter to keep them out of the cold. Is this an example of civic life, private life, politics, or government? Pause the video here and see what you think. If you guessed civic life, you're correct."}, {"video_title": "Civic life, private life, politics, and government   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "First up, AILA's church provides food and shelter for the homeless community during the winter to keep them out of the cold. Is this an example of civic life, private life, politics, or government? Pause the video here and see what you think. If you guessed civic life, you're correct. AILA is participating in what we call civil society here, which you might remember from another video. Civil society includes all of the voluntary institutions that people form and join outside of government and the market. She's doing something for her community."}, {"video_title": "Civic life, private life, politics, and government   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you guessed civic life, you're correct. AILA is participating in what we call civil society here, which you might remember from another video. Civil society includes all of the voluntary institutions that people form and join outside of government and the market. She's doing something for her community. Okay, next, the Supreme Court hears a case about internet copyright law and the First Amendment. Is this an example of civic life, private life, politics, or government? This is government."}, {"video_title": "Civic life, private life, politics, and government   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "She's doing something for her community. Okay, next, the Supreme Court hears a case about internet copyright law and the First Amendment. Is this an example of civic life, private life, politics, or government? This is government. The Supreme Court is part of a governing body that enforces the rules. Okay, last one. Jeffrey, a representative for the AARP, reaches out to Senator Rodriguez to provide more information on the impact a bill making its way through the House will have on senior citizens."}, {"video_title": "Civic life, private life, politics, and government   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is government. The Supreme Court is part of a governing body that enforces the rules. Okay, last one. Jeffrey, a representative for the AARP, reaches out to Senator Rodriguez to provide more information on the impact a bill making its way through the House will have on senior citizens. He wants to secure Senator Rodriguez's support when the bill reaches the Senate. Is this an example of civic life, private life, politics, or government? If you guessed politics, you're right."}, {"video_title": "Civic life, private life, politics, and government   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Jeffrey, a representative for the AARP, reaches out to Senator Rodriguez to provide more information on the impact a bill making its way through the House will have on senior citizens. He wants to secure Senator Rodriguez's support when the bill reaches the Senate. Is this an example of civic life, private life, politics, or government? If you guessed politics, you're right. Jeffrey is providing information hoping to influence a decision that will affect others. Okay, thanks for playing. Keep practicing your skills in the exercise for this lesson."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is a really important concept because in any federal system where you have multiple layers, you have the federal government, you have the state governments, and of course you also have the local governments, but this idea of what powers go to the federal government versus the state government is a super important one. And it's a matter of significant debate and it has changed over time. So to just get our baseline understanding, let's sample some of the enumerated powers to the federal government inside of the United States Constitution. So this right over here is Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. I'm not going to read it in its entirety. We'll focus on some of these powers in more detail in other videos, but I will sample it and focus on some of the clauses that have been especially cited and have been especially relevant to the world that we live in. So just a sample."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this right over here is Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. I'm not going to read it in its entirety. We'll focus on some of these powers in more detail in other videos, but I will sample it and focus on some of the clauses that have been especially cited and have been especially relevant to the world that we live in. So just a sample. So the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. So these are very clear enumerated powers. It's listing what the Congress has the power to do."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So just a sample. So the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. So these are very clear enumerated powers. It's listing what the Congress has the power to do. The Congress can borrow money on the credit of the United States. Once again, a very clear enumerated power. To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's listing what the Congress has the power to do. The Congress can borrow money on the credit of the United States. Once again, a very clear enumerated power. To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes. Now this clause right over here, and this is now referred to as the Commerce Clause, might not really stand out to you. It might not stand out to you relative to the right to conduct foreign affairs or something that seems very big and dramatic like that, but it turns out that the Commerce Clause is viewed as one of the significant clauses that gives the federal government significant rights. And it's considered to have really three enumerated rights embedded in it."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes. Now this clause right over here, and this is now referred to as the Commerce Clause, might not really stand out to you. It might not stand out to you relative to the right to conduct foreign affairs or something that seems very big and dramatic like that, but it turns out that the Commerce Clause is viewed as one of the significant clauses that gives the federal government significant rights. And it's considered to have really three enumerated rights embedded in it. You have the regulation of commerce with foreign nations, the regulation of commerce among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. And it's the middle one that is viewed as giving the federal government a lot of power. Because even though it might seem, okay, well, we're just talking about commerce between states, it's been used to justify things like federal drug laws."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's considered to have really three enumerated rights embedded in it. You have the regulation of commerce with foreign nations, the regulation of commerce among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. And it's the middle one that is viewed as giving the federal government a lot of power. Because even though it might seem, okay, well, we're just talking about commerce between states, it's been used to justify things like federal drug laws. That even if a state argues, hey, we are just going to, say, legalize marijuana within our states, the federal government has cited that your legalization of marijuana is going to affect commerce between states. And we'll go into more depth in that in future videos. But the Commerce Clause is a key enumerated right that's given in the Constitution that is viewed as giving the federal government fairly broad authority."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Because even though it might seem, okay, well, we're just talking about commerce between states, it's been used to justify things like federal drug laws. That even if a state argues, hey, we are just going to, say, legalize marijuana within our states, the federal government has cited that your legalization of marijuana is going to affect commerce between states. And we'll go into more depth in that in future videos. But the Commerce Clause is a key enumerated right that's given in the Constitution that is viewed as giving the federal government fairly broad authority. But let's continue. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, who becomes an American? Uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy, keep going."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the Commerce Clause is a key enumerated right that's given in the Constitution that is viewed as giving the federal government fairly broad authority. But let's continue. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, who becomes an American? Uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy, keep going. I always encourage you to look at this in context in the actual Constitution. That is always interesting. The reason why I listed all of these out, even though I'm not going to read them, is that it's just interesting to see how many of these enumerated rights there are."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy, keep going. I always encourage you to look at this in context in the actual Constitution. That is always interesting. The reason why I listed all of these out, even though I'm not going to read them, is that it's just interesting to see how many of these enumerated rights there are. But I'm gonna focus on the last clause. Because this one is, in a lot of ways, much bigger than all of the other ones. It says, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The reason why I listed all of these out, even though I'm not going to read them, is that it's just interesting to see how many of these enumerated rights there are. But I'm gonna focus on the last clause. Because this one is, in a lot of ways, much bigger than all of the other ones. It says, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof. Pause this video. Think about why this is a very, very, very big deal. Well, the previous 17 clauses were very explicit."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It says, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof. Pause this video. Think about why this is a very, very, very big deal. Well, the previous 17 clauses were very explicit. They were enumerated powers about what the federal government has the power to do. But this one here is making a much broader statement. It's saying to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, the powers, the enumerated powers that were in the last 17 clauses."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the previous 17 clauses were very explicit. They were enumerated powers about what the federal government has the power to do. But this one here is making a much broader statement. It's saying to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, the powers, the enumerated powers that were in the last 17 clauses. And so this is known as the necessary and proper clause, which you will hear a lot about. Necessary and proper. And it provides for a lot of implied powers."}, {"video_title": "Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's saying to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, the powers, the enumerated powers that were in the last 17 clauses. And so this is known as the necessary and proper clause, which you will hear a lot about. Necessary and proper. And it provides for a lot of implied powers. Because it's essentially saying, look, there's things that we haven't listed in the enumerated powers in the previous 17 clauses, but the federal government has the right to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. And so even when I was talking about, say, federal drug laws, it's really the combination of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause that allows the federal government to make some of these broader arguments that says, okay, we regulate commerce, and in order to regulate commerce, we need to regulate drugs, because it is necessary and proper for regulating interstate commerce. So we're gonna talk more and more about this, especially when we look at specific constitutional cases that will cite these clauses."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Hi, this is Kim from Khan Academy, and today I'm learning more about Article 7 of the U.S. Constitution, which is the provision that specified the conditions for the Constitution to become law. It reads, the ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same. Although this sounds simple, it reminds us that when the framers finished drafting the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787, it was by no means a done deal. At least nine states had to ratify the Constitution in order to replace the existing government under the Articles of Confederation. To learn more about the ratification process, I sought out the help of two experts. Mark Graber is the Jacob A. France Professor of Constitutionalism at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. Michael Rapoport is the Darling Foundation Professor at the University of San Diego School of Law."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "At least nine states had to ratify the Constitution in order to replace the existing government under the Articles of Confederation. To learn more about the ratification process, I sought out the help of two experts. Mark Graber is the Jacob A. France Professor of Constitutionalism at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. Michael Rapoport is the Darling Foundation Professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. Professor Graber, can you tell us a little bit about the political context of ratification? What was going on at this time as the framers tried to put a new Constitution into the fabric of the United States? Well, one central problem of the Articles of Confederation was the Articles required that all 13 states consent for any amendment."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Michael Rapoport is the Darling Foundation Professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. Professor Graber, can you tell us a little bit about the political context of ratification? What was going on at this time as the framers tried to put a new Constitution into the fabric of the United States? Well, one central problem of the Articles of Confederation was the Articles required that all 13 states consent for any amendment. And it turned out at this time, Rhode Island was a great outlier, so Rhode Island wasn't gonna consent to much of anything. And in fact, Rhode Island did not even send delegates to the convention that drafted the Constitution. So the framers knew that if you had the unanimous rule for ratification, it would not work."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, one central problem of the Articles of Confederation was the Articles required that all 13 states consent for any amendment. And it turned out at this time, Rhode Island was a great outlier, so Rhode Island wasn't gonna consent to much of anything. And in fact, Rhode Island did not even send delegates to the convention that drafted the Constitution. So the framers knew that if you had the unanimous rule for ratification, it would not work. So instead they chose nine, it's about 2 3rds, 3 4ths, in part to make sure Rhode Island and one outlier could not prevent adoption. So let's remember there's two stages here in how the Constitution gets written and ratified. So first it's written in what's called the Drafting Convention or the Philadelphia Convention, which was held during the summer of 1787."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the framers knew that if you had the unanimous rule for ratification, it would not work. So instead they chose nine, it's about 2 3rds, 3 4ths, in part to make sure Rhode Island and one outlier could not prevent adoption. So let's remember there's two stages here in how the Constitution gets written and ratified. So first it's written in what's called the Drafting Convention or the Philadelphia Convention, which was held during the summer of 1787. And in that convention, there was pretty much an agreement that the federal government needed to be made stronger. But that was just a proposal. In order for the Constitution to be ratified, it needed nine of the 13 states."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So first it's written in what's called the Drafting Convention or the Philadelphia Convention, which was held during the summer of 1787. And in that convention, there was pretty much an agreement that the federal government needed to be made stronger. But that was just a proposal. In order for the Constitution to be ratified, it needed nine of the 13 states. And so it went to the second stage. And there things were in some ways gonna be more difficult because there was a variety of viewpoints in the different states. And the main question that came up in state after state after state was, was the federal government being given too much additional power?"}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In order for the Constitution to be ratified, it needed nine of the 13 states. And so it went to the second stage. And there things were in some ways gonna be more difficult because there was a variety of viewpoints in the different states. And the main question that came up in state after state after state was, was the federal government being given too much additional power? Under the previous regime of the Articles of Confederation, the federal government had very limited powers. And the Constitution was gonna give the federal government more power. They wanted a strategy that once the ball started rolling, states that were slower were gonna be faced with a choice."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the main question that came up in state after state after state was, was the federal government being given too much additional power? Under the previous regime of the Articles of Confederation, the federal government had very limited powers. And the Constitution was gonna give the federal government more power. They wanted a strategy that once the ball started rolling, states that were slower were gonna be faced with a choice. You could get in on the inside and maybe affect some changes early. But if you were left out, whatever happened would happen without you. And a lot of states at the end were fearful of being left out."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They wanted a strategy that once the ball started rolling, states that were slower were gonna be faced with a choice. You could get in on the inside and maybe affect some changes early. But if you were left out, whatever happened would happen without you. And a lot of states at the end were fearful of being left out. This strategy worked. And as they went through in tough states, as time went on, so New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, in order to get ratification, each time they promised we'll have a Bill of Rights. And those states added a list of amendments that they wanted added to the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And a lot of states at the end were fearful of being left out. This strategy worked. And as they went through in tough states, as time went on, so New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, in order to get ratification, each time they promised we'll have a Bill of Rights. And those states added a list of amendments that they wanted added to the Constitution. So was it controversial that the framers decided that only nine states would be necessary to ratify the Constitution? Very controversial. One of the central points of anti-federalists was that this was illegal, that the existing Constitution said all states, and therefore only all states could change the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And those states added a list of amendments that they wanted added to the Constitution. So was it controversial that the framers decided that only nine states would be necessary to ratify the Constitution? Very controversial. One of the central points of anti-federalists was that this was illegal, that the existing Constitution said all states, and therefore only all states could change the Constitution. So in that respect, it was somewhat controversial. Another way in which it departed from the Articles, is the Articles said you needed the state legislatures to approve the amendments. And the US Constitution said, no, we want state conventions, special bodies elected by the people to approve these things."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One of the central points of anti-federalists was that this was illegal, that the existing Constitution said all states, and therefore only all states could change the Constitution. So in that respect, it was somewhat controversial. Another way in which it departed from the Articles, is the Articles said you needed the state legislatures to approve the amendments. And the US Constitution said, no, we want state conventions, special bodies elected by the people to approve these things. Why did they say that? Because they feared that the state legislatures who would be losing a lot of power under the Constitution would vote against it. So they wanted sort of to go directly to the people in these conventions and bypass the state legislatures."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the US Constitution said, no, we want state conventions, special bodies elected by the people to approve these things. Why did they say that? Because they feared that the state legislatures who would be losing a lot of power under the Constitution would vote against it. So they wanted sort of to go directly to the people in these conventions and bypass the state legislatures. So we know that there were some opponents of this new Constitution. How close did they actually come to preventing its ratification? Well, it was a very close fight."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they wanted sort of to go directly to the people in these conventions and bypass the state legislatures. So we know that there were some opponents of this new Constitution. How close did they actually come to preventing its ratification? Well, it was a very close fight. We look back on it and eventually all 13 states are gonna ratify and it just looks like, oh, well, that wasn't too much of a trouble. But it was very close and things could have easily gone in the opposite direction. One of the ways in which it was close was that there were just very close votes."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, it was a very close fight. We look back on it and eventually all 13 states are gonna ratify and it just looks like, oh, well, that wasn't too much of a trouble. But it was very close and things could have easily gone in the opposite direction. One of the ways in which it was close was that there were just very close votes. Massachusetts was 187 to 168. New Hampshire was 57, 47. New York was 30, 27."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One of the ways in which it was close was that there were just very close votes. Massachusetts was 187 to 168. New Hampshire was 57, 47. New York was 30, 27. So very close votes involved. A couple of people changing their mind and that would have meant various states didn't ratify. In addition to that, some of the states actually did not ratify."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "New York was 30, 27. So very close votes involved. A couple of people changing their mind and that would have meant various states didn't ratify. In addition to that, some of the states actually did not ratify. So the first thing that happened was Rhode Island early on in the process says, we don't like your horrible Constitution. They all expected that. We're not gonna hold even a convention."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In addition to that, some of the states actually did not ratify. So the first thing that happened was Rhode Island early on in the process says, we don't like your horrible Constitution. They all expected that. We're not gonna hold even a convention. You want us to hold a convention? We're not gonna hold a convention. We're just gonna have a vote in the state."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We're not gonna hold even a convention. You want us to hold a convention? We're not gonna hold a convention. We're just gonna have a vote in the state. And that vote in the state, 90% of the people voted against the Constitution. So in a way, Rhode Island actually voted against ratification, although they didn't use the proper method. North Carolina also, they held a convention and they were very upset about there not being a Bill of Rights in the Constitution and they just didn't approve it."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We're just gonna have a vote in the state. And that vote in the state, 90% of the people voted against the Constitution. So in a way, Rhode Island actually voted against ratification, although they didn't use the proper method. North Carolina also, they held a convention and they were very upset about there not being a Bill of Rights in the Constitution and they just didn't approve it. They didn't disapprove it. They just did nothing and they waited. So in a way, two of the states voted against ratification."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "North Carolina also, they held a convention and they were very upset about there not being a Bill of Rights in the Constitution and they just didn't approve it. They didn't disapprove it. They just did nothing and they waited. So in a way, two of the states voted against ratification. North Carolina had not yet ratified when George Washington took office. So in fact, when George Washington took office, there were only 11 states in the union. At the end of the day, crucial people, I think, decided it was better to sign the Constitution and be in on the ground floor than stay out and see what happened."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in a way, two of the states voted against ratification. North Carolina had not yet ratified when George Washington took office. So in fact, when George Washington took office, there were only 11 states in the union. At the end of the day, crucial people, I think, decided it was better to sign the Constitution and be in on the ground floor than stay out and see what happened. Interesting, so who are some of the major players involved here and what were they arguing about? There were the Federalists who were arguing in favor of ratifying the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists who were arguing against ratifying the Constitution. So the Federalists, two of the very famous ones, are familiar names, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "At the end of the day, crucial people, I think, decided it was better to sign the Constitution and be in on the ground floor than stay out and see what happened. Interesting, so who are some of the major players involved here and what were they arguing about? There were the Federalists who were arguing in favor of ratifying the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists who were arguing against ratifying the Constitution. So the Federalists, two of the very famous ones, are familiar names, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Those two people, though, were also particularly important because they decided, Hamilton said, we're gonna have a tough time getting ratification in New York, we need to write some essays defending the Constitution. And so Hamilton and Madison cooperated together and wrote what we now call the Federalist Papers, which were simply essays written in the newspapers trying to urge the New York Convention to ratify the Constitution. Eventually, those essays were sent to other states and became known and now we come to revere those essays as the Federalist Papers, but they were originally just kind of advocacy pieces for ratifying the Convention."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the Federalists, two of the very famous ones, are familiar names, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Those two people, though, were also particularly important because they decided, Hamilton said, we're gonna have a tough time getting ratification in New York, we need to write some essays defending the Constitution. And so Hamilton and Madison cooperated together and wrote what we now call the Federalist Papers, which were simply essays written in the newspapers trying to urge the New York Convention to ratify the Constitution. Eventually, those essays were sent to other states and became known and now we come to revere those essays as the Federalist Papers, but they were originally just kind of advocacy pieces for ratifying the Convention. Now, there were also Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists, in part, were simply people who opposed the Constitution. And just as it's the case that, say, people opposed Obamacare from both the left and the right, people who opposed the Constitution opposed it for many different reasons and one of their problems was they were not a united bunch."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Eventually, those essays were sent to other states and became known and now we come to revere those essays as the Federalist Papers, but they were originally just kind of advocacy pieces for ratifying the Convention. Now, there were also Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists, in part, were simply people who opposed the Constitution. And just as it's the case that, say, people opposed Obamacare from both the left and the right, people who opposed the Constitution opposed it for many different reasons and one of their problems was they were not a united bunch. But in general, these were people fearful of a very strong national government. They believed states were sovereign, they wanted to keep power local, and they were very fearful of what they perceived to be an elite who would run the Constitution after ratification. The names that people may know who were Anti-Federalists were people like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And just as it's the case that, say, people opposed Obamacare from both the left and the right, people who opposed the Constitution opposed it for many different reasons and one of their problems was they were not a united bunch. But in general, these were people fearful of a very strong national government. They believed states were sovereign, they wanted to keep power local, and they were very fearful of what they perceived to be an elite who would run the Constitution after ratification. The names that people may know who were Anti-Federalists were people like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. So what were some of the major arguments made in favor of adopting this new Constitution? There were, I think, two types of arguments. People felt that the Articles were not working properly."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The names that people may know who were Anti-Federalists were people like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. So what were some of the major arguments made in favor of adopting this new Constitution? There were, I think, two types of arguments. People felt that the Articles were not working properly. They had all kinds of problems. And one of the strongest arguments that the Federalist Papers made was that if we don't fix this and make for a stronger union together, what'll happen is we'll break apart. Look at what happens when you have a bunch of states all next to one another in a land area."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "People felt that the Articles were not working properly. They had all kinds of problems. And one of the strongest arguments that the Federalist Papers made was that if we don't fix this and make for a stronger union together, what'll happen is we'll break apart. Look at what happens when you have a bunch of states all next to one another in a land area. We know what that looks like. It's called Europe. And what happens in Europe?"}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Look at what happens when you have a bunch of states all next to one another in a land area. We know what that looks like. It's called Europe. And what happens in Europe? They fight wars with one another all the time. And those wars are very problematic. You have to have big armies, standing armies."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what happens in Europe? They fight wars with one another all the time. And those wars are very problematic. You have to have big armies, standing armies. Now, there were also the particular arguments about what powers were missing that the Federal Government had. The main arguments were made was the Federal Government did not have enough power. So they didn't have, for example, the taxing power."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have to have big armies, standing armies. Now, there were also the particular arguments about what powers were missing that the Federal Government had. The main arguments were made was the Federal Government did not have enough power. So they didn't have, for example, the taxing power. And they didn't have a way of enforcing treaties against the states very well. And some of the states were putting tariffs up, so interfering with trade within the country. So states would set tariffs on out-of-state goods."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they didn't have, for example, the taxing power. And they didn't have a way of enforcing treaties against the states very well. And some of the states were putting tariffs up, so interfering with trade within the country. So states would set tariffs on out-of-state goods. States wouldn't contribute to the national government. Second, we needed to present a united front to foreign governments. So we were very worried."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So states would set tariffs on out-of-state goods. States wouldn't contribute to the national government. Second, we needed to present a united front to foreign governments. So we were very worried. What would happen if South Carolina formed an alliance with England and North Carolina formed an alliance with France? That would be good. The country needed to speak with one voice."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So we were very worried. What would happen if South Carolina formed an alliance with England and North Carolina formed an alliance with France? That would be good. The country needed to speak with one voice. So those are some of the arguments made for adopting the Constitution. What were some of the arguments against adopting this new Constitution? Well, first argument was, even though most anti-Federalists admitted the Articles needed some repair, they said it's not really urgent."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The country needed to speak with one voice. So those are some of the arguments made for adopting the Constitution. What were some of the arguments against adopting this new Constitution? Well, first argument was, even though most anti-Federalists admitted the Articles needed some repair, they said it's not really urgent. It's not like the House is gonna fall down tomorrow. It's just, you know, the wind is coming through and we can figure it out. We really want a better Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, first argument was, even though most anti-Federalists admitted the Articles needed some repair, they said it's not really urgent. It's not like the House is gonna fall down tomorrow. It's just, you know, the wind is coming through and we can figure it out. We really want a better Constitution. The other arguments were the Constitution put too much power in the national government. It put too much power in elites. The fear was if you had national elections, only elites would win."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We really want a better Constitution. The other arguments were the Constitution put too much power in the national government. It put too much power in elites. The fear was if you had national elections, only elites would win. If you had local elections, people, the people actually knew would win. So they thought a big national government would be too far away from the people to know what they really needed, as opposed to state governments, which they perceived as being sort of more personal, closer to the needs of individuals. So compare two kinds of elections."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The fear was if you had national elections, only elites would win. If you had local elections, people, the people actually knew would win. So they thought a big national government would be too far away from the people to know what they really needed, as opposed to state governments, which they perceived as being sort of more personal, closer to the needs of individuals. So compare two kinds of elections. First, how many people really know anyone who runs for Senator, who runs for President, that you're on a first-name basis with? Now compare you're in a school club. Chances are, when someone runs for an officer of the school club, you know who they are."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So compare two kinds of elections. First, how many people really know anyone who runs for Senator, who runs for President, that you're on a first-name basis with? Now compare you're in a school club. Chances are, when someone runs for an officer of the school club, you know who they are. Another type of argument was, if you give the federal government this power, and even if, and the Federalists always argue that the power was limited, that they were being given to the federal government, and the Anti-Federalists came back and said, well, you say it's limited, but what we know from historical experience is that once a government's in power, it tends to seize more power. There's a lot of vague phrases in the Constitution, and the federal government will use those vague phrases to assert greater and greater power. What were some of the strategies that the Framers used to entice some of the opponents of a strong central government to ratify the Constitution?"}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Chances are, when someone runs for an officer of the school club, you know who they are. Another type of argument was, if you give the federal government this power, and even if, and the Federalists always argue that the power was limited, that they were being given to the federal government, and the Anti-Federalists came back and said, well, you say it's limited, but what we know from historical experience is that once a government's in power, it tends to seize more power. There's a lot of vague phrases in the Constitution, and the federal government will use those vague phrases to assert greater and greater power. What were some of the strategies that the Framers used to entice some of the opponents of a strong central government to ratify the Constitution? So the first thing that they did was to try to build up momentum. So they knew there were certain states which were strongly in favor of ratification. Small states sometimes wanted ratification."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What were some of the strategies that the Framers used to entice some of the opponents of a strong central government to ratify the Constitution? So the first thing that they did was to try to build up momentum. So they knew there were certain states which were strongly in favor of ratification. Small states sometimes wanted ratification. So the first state that comes in is Delaware, and they vote 30 to zero for the Constitution. And a bunch of early states, so let's say the first five states, all vote for ratification by pretty lopsided margins. So that builds up a kind of momentum."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Small states sometimes wanted ratification. So the first state that comes in is Delaware, and they vote 30 to zero for the Constitution. And a bunch of early states, so let's say the first five states, all vote for ratification by pretty lopsided margins. So that builds up a kind of momentum. All right, we have five states, we only need four more. Of course, the next ones that were gonna come were gonna be much more difficult. And they then needed to change their strategy at that point."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that builds up a kind of momentum. All right, we have five states, we only need four more. Of course, the next ones that were gonna come were gonna be much more difficult. And they then needed to change their strategy at that point. You know, they argued like crazy. The Federalist Papers are a very famous example. They indicated they'd be open to amendment once the Constitution was ratified."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they then needed to change their strategy at that point. You know, they argued like crazy. The Federalist Papers are a very famous example. They indicated they'd be open to amendment once the Constitution was ratified. Then again in Pennsylvania, when anti-Federalists boycotted the convention, and the result is the convention didn't have a quorum, they ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to a tavern. The Sergeant-at-Arms found some boycotting anti-Federalists and physically put them in the building so they could count for a quorum. That's terrific."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They indicated they'd be open to amendment once the Constitution was ratified. Then again in Pennsylvania, when anti-Federalists boycotted the convention, and the result is the convention didn't have a quorum, they ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to a tavern. The Sergeant-at-Arms found some boycotting anti-Federalists and physically put them in the building so they could count for a quorum. That's terrific. That one doesn't get told in a whole lot of history books. Wow. The framers could play rough and tumble politics with the best of them."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's terrific. That one doesn't get told in a whole lot of history books. Wow. The framers could play rough and tumble politics with the best of them. A lot of the things that pop up at the time of the framing, I think we look back on today and imagine, how would this work in today's era with 330 million Americans? Do you think the system under the Articles of Confederation with a smaller, more local government could possibly work today? Well, among other things, the Articles had no great means of collecting taxes or gaining revenue."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The framers could play rough and tumble politics with the best of them. A lot of the things that pop up at the time of the framing, I think we look back on today and imagine, how would this work in today's era with 330 million Americans? Do you think the system under the Articles of Confederation with a smaller, more local government could possibly work today? Well, among other things, the Articles had no great means of collecting taxes or gaining revenue. Given that modern government needs trillions of dollars, the Articles, if you got $1,000, it was a miracle. So the Articles clearly don't work. But the Articles were inadequate for 18th century government."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, among other things, the Articles had no great means of collecting taxes or gaining revenue. Given that modern government needs trillions of dollars, the Articles, if you got $1,000, it was a miracle. So the Articles clearly don't work. But the Articles were inadequate for 18th century government. They were clearly inadequate or would be clearly inadequate for 21st century government. Now, the Constitution appears to have been adequate for 18th century government. Whether it is adequate for 21st century government is a fair question."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the Articles were inadequate for 18th century government. They were clearly inadequate or would be clearly inadequate for 21st century government. Now, the Constitution appears to have been adequate for 18th century government. Whether it is adequate for 21st century government is a fair question. One of the interesting questions about the Constitution is how democratic is the Constitution? This debate about how democratic the Constitution is actually enters into the question about ratification. On one level, the Constitution was democratic because each state in these ratification conventions voted on whether to ratify by majority vote."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Whether it is adequate for 21st century government is a fair question. One of the interesting questions about the Constitution is how democratic is the Constitution? This debate about how democratic the Constitution is actually enters into the question about ratification. On one level, the Constitution was democratic because each state in these ratification conventions voted on whether to ratify by majority vote. On the other hand, at the federal level, the ratification requirement required nine out of 13. And the idea there would be we needed more buy-in. We needed a limitation on simple majority rule in order to make the system function well, in order to produce a Constitution that would have support from the whole country."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "On one level, the Constitution was democratic because each state in these ratification conventions voted on whether to ratify by majority vote. On the other hand, at the federal level, the ratification requirement required nine out of 13. And the idea there would be we needed more buy-in. We needed a limitation on simple majority rule in order to make the system function well, in order to produce a Constitution that would have support from the whole country. The interesting thing about that supermajority rule and something that people don't often make the connection with is we probably owe our Bill of Rights to that supermajority rule. Because if only seven of the 13 states, if the mere majority had been needed to ratify the Constitution, then it's quite possible that the federalists wouldn't have had to promise to put a Bill of Rights into the Constitution because they wouldn't have needed to. And they were initially quite opposed to putting a Bill of Rights in the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We needed a limitation on simple majority rule in order to make the system function well, in order to produce a Constitution that would have support from the whole country. The interesting thing about that supermajority rule and something that people don't often make the connection with is we probably owe our Bill of Rights to that supermajority rule. Because if only seven of the 13 states, if the mere majority had been needed to ratify the Constitution, then it's quite possible that the federalists wouldn't have had to promise to put a Bill of Rights into the Constitution because they wouldn't have needed to. And they were initially quite opposed to putting a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. It was only the fact that they needed nine out of the 13 states that really forced their hand and forced them to promise that they would put the Bill of Rights in there. So we see in terms of the ratification that there's both sort of democratic elements but also Republican or supermajority elements. So we've learned that it wasn't easy to ratify the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article VII of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they were initially quite opposed to putting a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. It was only the fact that they needed nine out of the 13 states that really forced their hand and forced them to promise that they would put the Bill of Rights in there. So we see in terms of the ratification that there's both sort of democratic elements but also Republican or supermajority elements. So we've learned that it wasn't easy to ratify the Constitution. The framers bypassed state legislatures and went directly to the people in state conventions, hoping that momentum and arguments for a stronger federal government would entice the opponents of the Constitution to ratify it. It took until 1789 for nine out of 13 states to ratify the Constitution and finally make it law. To learn more about Article VII, check out the National Constitution Center's interactive constitution and Khan Academy's resources on US government and politics."}, {"video_title": "Impact of media evolution on politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if we rewind many hundreds of years, you have the printing press that was invented in the mid-15th century. And then in the early 17th century, you have your first printed newspapers. And so much of early American history, the main form of media was the newspaper. And this is actually a picture of the New York Tribune from 1864. And you see, it doesn't look all that different from some of the newspapers today. And so you can imagine, in the 18th and 19th century, newspapers were the most powerful way of getting views out. In fact, many of these historical documents that we study in American history, like the Federalist Papers, these were published in newspapers in order to affect public opinion."}, {"video_title": "Impact of media evolution on politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is actually a picture of the New York Tribune from 1864. And you see, it doesn't look all that different from some of the newspapers today. And so you can imagine, in the 18th and 19th century, newspapers were the most powerful way of getting views out. In fact, many of these historical documents that we study in American history, like the Federalist Papers, these were published in newspapers in order to affect public opinion. But then as we start to enter into the 20th century, technology starts to give us more forms of mass communication and mass media that might affect political discourse. So this is a picture of folks listening to a radio broadcast in the early 20th century. And there would have been an entertainment over these broadcasts, but there would also have been news."}, {"video_title": "Impact of media evolution on politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, many of these historical documents that we study in American history, like the Federalist Papers, these were published in newspapers in order to affect public opinion. But then as we start to enter into the 20th century, technology starts to give us more forms of mass communication and mass media that might affect political discourse. So this is a picture of folks listening to a radio broadcast in the early 20th century. And there would have been an entertainment over these broadcasts, but there would also have been news. And so you can imagine that this affected people's views of politics. Politicians, leaders, started to give speeches over radio. And as you get into the mid-20th century, TV becomes more and more pronounced of an influence on politics."}, {"video_title": "Impact of media evolution on politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there would have been an entertainment over these broadcasts, but there would also have been news. And so you can imagine that this affected people's views of politics. Politicians, leaders, started to give speeches over radio. And as you get into the mid-20th century, TV becomes more and more pronounced of an influence on politics. This is a picture of Walter Cronkite, famous for being one of the most respected journalists in all of television, and the first to broadcast a nightly news in the mid-20th century. Now, as you get to the late 20th century, not only do you have the major networks broadcasting news, but you start having the advent of cable news networks. So you start having a larger diversity of people who are giving news."}, {"video_title": "Impact of media evolution on politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And as you get into the mid-20th century, TV becomes more and more pronounced of an influence on politics. This is a picture of Walter Cronkite, famous for being one of the most respected journalists in all of television, and the first to broadcast a nightly news in the mid-20th century. Now, as you get to the late 20th century, not only do you have the major networks broadcasting news, but you start having the advent of cable news networks. So you start having a larger diversity of people who are giving news. And then as you get into the internet age, it explodes. You have blogs and news websites that start more and more to cater to specific views. And then with the advent of social media, you have a way for leaders or people who influence other people's thought to directly influence or directly communicate with those that follow them, whether we're talking about Twitter or Facebook or Instagram."}, {"video_title": "Impact of media evolution on politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you start having a larger diversity of people who are giving news. And then as you get into the internet age, it explodes. You have blogs and news websites that start more and more to cater to specific views. And then with the advent of social media, you have a way for leaders or people who influence other people's thought to directly influence or directly communicate with those that follow them, whether we're talking about Twitter or Facebook or Instagram. And so an interesting question is, how has this affected political discourse? How has this affected politics? So many people would view this as a positive thing, that back in the day, it took a lot of capital, it took a lot of resources to print and publish a newspaper."}, {"video_title": "Impact of media evolution on politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then with the advent of social media, you have a way for leaders or people who influence other people's thought to directly influence or directly communicate with those that follow them, whether we're talking about Twitter or Facebook or Instagram. And so an interesting question is, how has this affected political discourse? How has this affected politics? So many people would view this as a positive thing, that back in the day, it took a lot of capital, it took a lot of resources to print and publish a newspaper. It took a lot of resources to nationally broadcast news. And so it was a limited number of groups that could get the views out, while as you have the internet and social media, anyone can communicate with anyone else. And so this would have increased the number of media choices and increased the number of points of views that are out there."}, {"video_title": "Impact of media evolution on politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So many people would view this as a positive thing, that back in the day, it took a lot of capital, it took a lot of resources to print and publish a newspaper. It took a lot of resources to nationally broadcast news. And so it was a limited number of groups that could get the views out, while as you have the internet and social media, anyone can communicate with anyone else. And so this would have increased the number of media choices and increased the number of points of views that are out there. Now, others would argue that, well, that might be good, but maybe there are negative consequences to it as well. In the days of Walter Cronkite, everyone was kind of operating with the same information. But with social media, more and more people fear that we're living in our own echo chambers, that we tend to follow people who already believe what we believe, that we tend to go to the media sites that reinforce our existing beliefs, and so it is polarizing."}, {"video_title": "Impact of media evolution on politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so this would have increased the number of media choices and increased the number of points of views that are out there. Now, others would argue that, well, that might be good, but maybe there are negative consequences to it as well. In the days of Walter Cronkite, everyone was kind of operating with the same information. But with social media, more and more people fear that we're living in our own echo chambers, that we tend to follow people who already believe what we believe, that we tend to go to the media sites that reinforce our existing beliefs, and so it is polarizing. And it could also be polarizing because we have to think about the economics of media. Many of these media outlets are for-profit businesses, and so they have to think, how do we get the maximum viewership? And that might be catering to what people already believe in or increasing the polarization, maybe demonizing the other side."}, {"video_title": "Impact of media evolution on politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But with social media, more and more people fear that we're living in our own echo chambers, that we tend to follow people who already believe what we believe, that we tend to go to the media sites that reinforce our existing beliefs, and so it is polarizing. And it could also be polarizing because we have to think about the economics of media. Many of these media outlets are for-profit businesses, and so they have to think, how do we get the maximum viewership? And that might be catering to what people already believe in or increasing the polarization, maybe demonizing the other side. Now, many people would also argue, along with that increased polarization and with this increased diversity, that more and more people are just doubtful of any news source, of any media source, and so they just become more skeptical and cynical of not just media, but the government as well. So it's an interesting phenomenon that we are living in as we speak. As much change as the newspaper or the radio or television broadcasts happened, we are now in this time of accelerating change where every few years, it feels like there's a new medium coming out."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What were the Articles of Confederation and why did they need to get replaced? Well the Articles of Confederation were the first loose set of rules to govern these 13 states, but they were a mess. Essentially they allowed the states to be kind of their own little sovereign islands. So it was not a united nation, it was like an archipelago of islands. And the reason they were a mess, a couple of things. One, when they tried to repay the Revolutionary War soldiers, Congress in Washington with very little power had to go to the states and say, please give us some money so we can repay the soldiers. A lot of the states said, no thank you, we're not going to do that."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it was not a united nation, it was like an archipelago of islands. And the reason they were a mess, a couple of things. One, when they tried to repay the Revolutionary War soldiers, Congress in Washington with very little power had to go to the states and say, please give us some money so we can repay the soldiers. A lot of the states said, no thank you, we're not going to do that. Then if you had a river that rolled through several different states and you wanted to have a trade agreement with the Spanish, for example, to use that river and trade along it, then the government didn't have one way to negotiate with the Spanish. Individual states had to do it and individual states had different interests. Some wanted to trade with the Spanish, some didn't want to trade at all."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A lot of the states said, no thank you, we're not going to do that. Then if you had a river that rolled through several different states and you wanted to have a trade agreement with the Spanish, for example, to use that river and trade along it, then the government didn't have one way to negotiate with the Spanish. Individual states had to do it and individual states had different interests. Some wanted to trade with the Spanish, some didn't want to trade at all. And so you had to, how do you get those states to agree on something? There was also not universal coinage. The states all made their own money indifferently."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Some wanted to trade with the Spanish, some didn't want to trade at all. And so you had to, how do you get those states to agree on something? There was also not universal coinage. The states all made their own money indifferently. Well states might print a bunch of money in order to pay off some debts and then the money in one state is worth less than the money in another. Who regulates all of that? So commerce and industry and self-defense, there was no way to raise an army and pay for it."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The states all made their own money indifferently. Well states might print a bunch of money in order to pay off some debts and then the money in one state is worth less than the money in another. Who regulates all of that? So commerce and industry and self-defense, there was no way to raise an army and pay for it. So the nation was crumbling before they got to Philadelphia in 1787. And to your point, in most countries the parts of the country are called things like provinces, but ours are states because they viewed themselves as individual countries. Absolutely."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So commerce and industry and self-defense, there was no way to raise an army and pay for it. So the nation was crumbling before they got to Philadelphia in 1787. And to your point, in most countries the parts of the country are called things like provinces, but ours are states because they viewed themselves as individual countries. Absolutely. And because, of course, the Articles of Confederation had been formed in the wake of this fear and the experience of the fear of a monarchy. So they wanted personal liberty and get the monarchy and national control, throw it all away because they believed that once you consolidate control in a national government of any kind, that it would trample liberty. And so after having fought a revolution for the purposes of liberating the people, you're not going to design a government that then stomps down on that liberty."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Absolutely. And because, of course, the Articles of Confederation had been formed in the wake of this fear and the experience of the fear of a monarchy. So they wanted personal liberty and get the monarchy and national control, throw it all away because they believed that once you consolidate control in a national government of any kind, that it would trample liberty. And so after having fought a revolution for the purposes of liberating the people, you're not going to design a government that then stomps down on that liberty. So they created something that gave the states lots of flexibility and then that flexibility allowed everybody to go off in their different directions. The Articles of Confederation may be too much independence for the individual states. So it seems like there was a consensus to fix it."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so after having fought a revolution for the purposes of liberating the people, you're not going to design a government that then stomps down on that liberty. So they created something that gave the states lots of flexibility and then that flexibility allowed everybody to go off in their different directions. The Articles of Confederation may be too much independence for the individual states. So it seems like there was a consensus to fix it. What was the central debate when they decided to fix it? Well there was a consensus it had to be fixed. But when they got to Philadelphia, first of all, Rhode Island was invited and said no thank you."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it seems like there was a consensus to fix it. What was the central debate when they decided to fix it? Well there was a consensus it had to be fixed. But when they got to Philadelphia, first of all, Rhode Island was invited and said no thank you. So 12 of the 13 states showed up. And they knew they wanted to centralize things. But what did that mean?"}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But when they got to Philadelphia, first of all, Rhode Island was invited and said no thank you. So 12 of the 13 states showed up. And they knew they wanted to centralize things. But what did that mean? And did it mean one president or a council of presidents? Did it mean a strong Congress? How strong?"}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what did that mean? And did it mean one president or a council of presidents? Did it mean a strong Congress? How strong? Could they tell states what to do? Well if they did that, then they were acting just like George III had acted. So they had to iron out all of these issues to bring enough central control and enough quick movement of government that it could address national problems, but not so much that it trampled and stomped on that liberty."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How strong? Could they tell states what to do? Well if they did that, then they were acting just like George III had acted. So they had to iron out all of these issues to bring enough central control and enough quick movement of government that it could address national problems, but not so much that it trampled and stomped on that liberty. And that was the constant debate, constantly trying to figure out how to keep the balance between giving enough national power but enough liberty. And that, some of the biggest fights included fights over slavery, North versus South, fights over big states versus small states. Who has representation in this national government and how do you figure that out?"}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they had to iron out all of these issues to bring enough central control and enough quick movement of government that it could address national problems, but not so much that it trampled and stomped on that liberty. And that was the constant debate, constantly trying to figure out how to keep the balance between giving enough national power but enough liberty. And that, some of the biggest fights included fights over slavery, North versus South, fights over big states versus small states. Who has representation in this national government and how do you figure that out? And then of course the question of do we want a president? Will it be a single person? And how the dickens do we elect that person, which led us to the electoral college, which has had some bumpy history."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Who has representation in this national government and how do you figure that out? And then of course the question of do we want a president? Will it be a single person? And how the dickens do we elect that person, which led us to the electoral college, which has had some bumpy history. And where do you think we ended up if on a scale of zero to ten, if zero was a complete you know independent states and ten is a federal government that just controls everything, where do you think the U.S. Constitution ended up relative to the Articles of Confederation? Well in September of 1787, when it gets, September 17th, 1787, when the new constitution gets voted on, it is a stronger national document that has basically three main parts. One, the people are at the heart and center of it."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And how the dickens do we elect that person, which led us to the electoral college, which has had some bumpy history. And where do you think we ended up if on a scale of zero to ten, if zero was a complete you know independent states and ten is a federal government that just controls everything, where do you think the U.S. Constitution ended up relative to the Articles of Confederation? Well in September of 1787, when it gets, September 17th, 1787, when the new constitution gets voted on, it is a stronger national document that has basically three main parts. One, the people are at the heart and center of it. It is the people who are the representatives or at the center of the Republican government. The second thing is that the national government can tell states what to do in some instances. Those instances are circumscribed, but it can happen."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One, the people are at the heart and center of it. It is the people who are the representatives or at the center of the Republican government. The second thing is that the national government can tell states what to do in some instances. Those instances are circumscribed, but it can happen. The states have to fall in line. That was very new. And there is this thing called a presidency, which is created single person, created really in the mold of George Washington."}, {"video_title": "What was the Articles of Confederation   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Those instances are circumscribed, but it can happen. The states have to fall in line. That was very new. And there is this thing called a presidency, which is created single person, created really in the mold of George Washington. So it is a nationalized government, but with a strong attention to this question of protecting liberty through a balance of power system so that both the national government has checks and balances and also the relationship between the federal government and the state government has a number of checks and balances. So even though they went in a more centralized direction, they were constantly attentive to this idea of liberty, keeping it free in the states and not messing with them too much in their effort to get some kind of centralized control. So it sounds like they might have gone from a one or two at the Articles of Confederation to maybe a seven, six."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what we're going to do in this video is focus on what you could consider to be the five stages of the policy process. And I'll use a very simple example to make those stages tangible. So the first stage of the public policy process is identifying issues or agenda setting. So agenda, agenda setting right over here are identifying issues. And an example of that, and this is actually something that is going on near my house right now, is that there is an intersection about two blocks from my house. So let me see if I can draw this intersection. So looks something like this."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So agenda, agenda setting right over here are identifying issues. And an example of that, and this is actually something that is going on near my house right now, is that there is an intersection about two blocks from my house. So let me see if I can draw this intersection. So looks something like this. And it's a two-way stop sign. So you have a stop sign right over there. You have a stop sign right over there."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So looks something like this. And it's a two-way stop sign. So you have a stop sign right over there. You have a stop sign right over there. And the problem is you have this large park in this corner right over there. And there's also a school here. And so in the morning, there's a lot of kids and parents going on their bicycles or walking to school."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have a stop sign right over there. And the problem is you have this large park in this corner right over there. And there's also a school here. And so in the morning, there's a lot of kids and parents going on their bicycles or walking to school. But the problem is there's also a lot of parents who might be late for school, and they're going in their cars, and they're going quite fast down this road, and it's a two-way stop. And so even though that there's a lot of kids that are waiting to cross right over here, and there's no crossing guard, so there's a lot of kids and parents walking right here, they have to wait. And you can imagine, this is an elementary school."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so in the morning, there's a lot of kids and parents going on their bicycles or walking to school. But the problem is there's also a lot of parents who might be late for school, and they're going in their cars, and they're going quite fast down this road, and it's a two-way stop. And so even though that there's a lot of kids that are waiting to cross right over here, and there's no crossing guard, so there's a lot of kids and parents walking right here, they have to wait. And you can imagine, this is an elementary school. These cars are going by really fast. It's quite dangerous. So the agenda here is that, well, how do you make this safer and easier for families to cross the street on the way to the park?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you can imagine, this is an elementary school. These cars are going by really fast. It's quite dangerous. So the agenda here is that, well, how do you make this safer and easier for families to cross the street on the way to the park? So the example here, how to make easier to cross the street at that intersection. Now, once you determine the problem that you want to solve, you do the agenda setting, the next step is to formulate some type of a policy. So I'll call that step two."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the agenda here is that, well, how do you make this safer and easier for families to cross the street on the way to the park? So the example here, how to make easier to cross the street at that intersection. Now, once you determine the problem that you want to solve, you do the agenda setting, the next step is to formulate some type of a policy. So I'll call that step two. Would be policy formulation. So one potential idea here is, well, why don't we just make this into a four-way stop? So we could put some paint here to make it clear that people are going to cross on all sides, and we'll put two more stop signs to make this a four-way stop."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So I'll call that step two. Would be policy formulation. So one potential idea here is, well, why don't we just make this into a four-way stop? So we could put some paint here to make it clear that people are going to cross on all sides, and we'll put two more stop signs to make this a four-way stop. So let's say that this is our current plan, as we say, hey, making this tangible, we're going to implement a four-way stop at that intersection. Now, that's not the only solution that's possible. Maybe some type of speed bumps might be in order right over here and right over here."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So we could put some paint here to make it clear that people are going to cross on all sides, and we'll put two more stop signs to make this a four-way stop. So let's say that this is our current plan, as we say, hey, making this tangible, we're going to implement a four-way stop at that intersection. Now, that's not the only solution that's possible. Maybe some type of speed bumps might be in order right over here and right over here. Maybe they're implement some type of crossing guard, or maybe you put one of those flashing blinking signs that tell people their speed limit so that they go slower. So there's many different ways to formulate ideas that will address this agenda, that will address these problems. But let's say that we do a study, and we decide that a four-way stop is the policy that we want to pursue."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe some type of speed bumps might be in order right over here and right over here. Maybe they're implement some type of crossing guard, or maybe you put one of those flashing blinking signs that tell people their speed limit so that they go slower. So there's many different ways to formulate ideas that will address this agenda, that will address these problems. But let's say that we do a study, and we decide that a four-way stop is the policy that we want to pursue. Well, then the next step after that is to convince other people that this is a good idea. So step three right over here, we could call policy adoption, adoption or legitimization. And in my context, it might involve going to the city council, maybe with some traffic experts, some safety experts."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But let's say that we do a study, and we decide that a four-way stop is the policy that we want to pursue. Well, then the next step after that is to convince other people that this is a good idea. So step three right over here, we could call policy adoption, adoption or legitimization. And in my context, it might involve going to the city council, maybe with some traffic experts, some safety experts. Maybe I can go gather the community here, petition, so that a lot of people in the community here agree that a four-way stop would be in order. And let's say the city council and the police department and all the various stakeholders who have to buy in say, yes, we are going to implement a four-way stop here, and then they implement it. And so once the policy is adopted, the next thing is, well, you gotta actually implement it."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And in my context, it might involve going to the city council, maybe with some traffic experts, some safety experts. Maybe I can go gather the community here, petition, so that a lot of people in the community here agree that a four-way stop would be in order. And let's say the city council and the police department and all the various stakeholders who have to buy in say, yes, we are going to implement a four-way stop here, and then they implement it. And so once the policy is adopted, the next thing is, well, you gotta actually implement it. So I'll call that step four, policy implementation. Implementation. Implementation."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so once the policy is adopted, the next thing is, well, you gotta actually implement it. So I'll call that step four, policy implementation. Implementation. Implementation. And in this case, it's pretty straightforward. Somebody has to show up and install those stop signs. Maybe they're gonna paint, put some markers over here to make it more clear that people are going to cross the street as they go onto the park."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Implementation. And in this case, it's pretty straightforward. Somebody has to show up and install those stop signs. Maybe they're gonna paint, put some markers over here to make it more clear that people are going to cross the street as they go onto the park. But that would be the implementation. Now, the last step in this public policy cycle or this process, and we'll see it really is a cycle, is to just assess it, to evaluate how things are going. So the next step, we'll call this step five right over here, would be policy assessment, assessment, or evaluation."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe they're gonna paint, put some markers over here to make it more clear that people are going to cross the street as they go onto the park. But that would be the implementation. Now, the last step in this public policy cycle or this process, and we'll see it really is a cycle, is to just assess it, to evaluate how things are going. So the next step, we'll call this step five right over here, would be policy assessment, assessment, or evaluation. And so one possibility is to go survey people in the community. Has that solved the problem? Has it created new problems?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the next step, we'll call this step five right over here, would be policy assessment, assessment, or evaluation. And so one possibility is to go survey people in the community. Has that solved the problem? Has it created new problems? Is there a traffic issue now because people have to go to the four-way stop? And whatever the assessment says, the assessment might say, hey, everything's perfect now, and then you don't really have to worry about this problem anymore, but maybe there's a new traffic problem, and now that'd be another issue to address, and you would have to go through the cycle again. Or maybe it hasn't addressed the speed issue, and so maybe you need to think about, well, how do we slow cars down or whatever else?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the public policy process   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Has it created new problems? Is there a traffic issue now because people have to go to the four-way stop? And whatever the assessment says, the assessment might say, hey, everything's perfect now, and then you don't really have to worry about this problem anymore, but maybe there's a new traffic problem, and now that'd be another issue to address, and you would have to go through the cycle again. Or maybe it hasn't addressed the speed issue, and so maybe you need to think about, well, how do we slow cars down or whatever else? And we would keep going through this public policy process or this, really, this cycle that we're talking about. Now, the example that I just gave, this is a very simple example at a corner two blocks from my house, and this is actually something I'm thinking about. I'm thinking about going to the city council about this."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Article Three establishes the judicial branch of government, including the Supreme Court, whose job is to interpret the laws of the United States. To learn more about Article Three in the judicial branch, I asked two experts to give me some more information. Jeff Rosen is the President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and he's written extensively about the courts and the Supreme Court in particular. Richard Garnett is a professor of law and political science at the University of Notre Dame School of Law. Jeff, can you tell us a little bit about the framers' vision for the judicial branch? How much power did they intend for the judicial branch to have? Well, let's start by reading the text."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Richard Garnett is a professor of law and political science at the University of Notre Dame School of Law. Jeff, can you tell us a little bit about the framers' vision for the judicial branch? How much power did they intend for the judicial branch to have? Well, let's start by reading the text. That's always the best place to start. And the text of Article Three, the very first sentence, says, the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time establish. The framers expected that we would have a Supreme Court, and that would be separate from the legislature and the president, but it was up for Congress to decide what other federal courts we'd have, if any."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, let's start by reading the text. That's always the best place to start. And the text of Article Three, the very first sentence, says, the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time establish. The framers expected that we would have a Supreme Court, and that would be separate from the legislature and the president, but it was up for Congress to decide what other federal courts we'd have, if any. And it's so interesting that the framers are so focused on a system where state courts are the main interaction that people have with the judicial system that they didn't even require Congress to set up inferior federal courts at all. So what does Article Three tell us about how the judicial branch is supposed to be structured? Well, it doesn't say a whole lot."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The framers expected that we would have a Supreme Court, and that would be separate from the legislature and the president, but it was up for Congress to decide what other federal courts we'd have, if any. And it's so interesting that the framers are so focused on a system where state courts are the main interaction that people have with the judicial system that they didn't even require Congress to set up inferior federal courts at all. So what does Article Three tell us about how the judicial branch is supposed to be structured? Well, it doesn't say a whole lot. It's interesting. So some people are surprised when you actually read the text of Article Three. It sets up the Supreme Court, and it says that all of the federal judicial power is gonna be in that Supreme Court, but it doesn't tell us anything about, say, courts of appeals or trial courts."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, it doesn't say a whole lot. It's interesting. So some people are surprised when you actually read the text of Article Three. It sets up the Supreme Court, and it says that all of the federal judicial power is gonna be in that Supreme Court, but it doesn't tell us anything about, say, courts of appeals or trial courts. It clearly envisions that Congress is gonna create some, but it really did leave it to Congress to decide how to structure the judicial system. So what are some of the ways that the role of the Supreme Court has changed over time? Well, I think it's fair to say that there's a lot more federal law than there used to be, and so there are more questions that are potentially questions for the Supreme Court than there used to be."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It sets up the Supreme Court, and it says that all of the federal judicial power is gonna be in that Supreme Court, but it doesn't tell us anything about, say, courts of appeals or trial courts. It clearly envisions that Congress is gonna create some, but it really did leave it to Congress to decide how to structure the judicial system. So what are some of the ways that the role of the Supreme Court has changed over time? Well, I think it's fair to say that there's a lot more federal law than there used to be, and so there are more questions that are potentially questions for the Supreme Court than there used to be. I mean, if you think of the country's early history, most of the legal action was in the states and the state courts and the state legislatures. There wasn't that much, there weren't that many questions for the Supreme Court to answer. As the federal government grows, as federal law expands, that creates more work for the Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, I think it's fair to say that there's a lot more federal law than there used to be, and so there are more questions that are potentially questions for the Supreme Court than there used to be. I mean, if you think of the country's early history, most of the legal action was in the states and the state courts and the state legislatures. There wasn't that much, there weren't that many questions for the Supreme Court to answer. As the federal government grows, as federal law expands, that creates more work for the Supreme Court. What does equal protection mean? What does due process mean? What's the balance between the freedom of speech on the one hand and intellectual property on the other, say?"}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "As the federal government grows, as federal law expands, that creates more work for the Supreme Court. What does equal protection mean? What does due process mean? What's the balance between the freedom of speech on the one hand and intellectual property on the other, say? These are questions that the founders might not have been able to envision being judicial questions. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 famously said that the judiciary would be the least dangerous branch because it had neither purse nor sword. The framers thought that Congress would be the most dangerous branch because it had the most enumerated powers, the presidency's second, because limited but constrained powers, and the judiciary the least dangerous because it didn't have the army and it had no money and all it could do was issue judgments and hope that they would be accepted by the other branches."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What's the balance between the freedom of speech on the one hand and intellectual property on the other, say? These are questions that the founders might not have been able to envision being judicial questions. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 famously said that the judiciary would be the least dangerous branch because it had neither purse nor sword. The framers thought that Congress would be the most dangerous branch because it had the most enumerated powers, the presidency's second, because limited but constrained powers, and the judiciary the least dangerous because it didn't have the army and it had no money and all it could do was issue judgments and hope that they would be accepted by the other branches. So say that I'm a Supreme Court justice, good work me, and a case comes before me and it's up to me now to interpret the Constitution in such a way that I can answer questions about this certain case. So what would be some of the tools that I could use to help me in my interpretation? Well, there's obviously deep and fascinating disagreements among people about how exactly courts should do that, but one place where you could start, and I think there'd be common ground here, is that all justices believe that it's important to ask, well, how has the Supreme Court answered questions like this in the past?"}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The framers thought that Congress would be the most dangerous branch because it had the most enumerated powers, the presidency's second, because limited but constrained powers, and the judiciary the least dangerous because it didn't have the army and it had no money and all it could do was issue judgments and hope that they would be accepted by the other branches. So say that I'm a Supreme Court justice, good work me, and a case comes before me and it's up to me now to interpret the Constitution in such a way that I can answer questions about this certain case. So what would be some of the tools that I could use to help me in my interpretation? Well, there's obviously deep and fascinating disagreements among people about how exactly courts should do that, but one place where you could start, and I think there'd be common ground here, is that all justices believe that it's important to ask, well, how has the Supreme Court answered questions like this in the past? So the first place you would look would be to the court's own precedence, right? Has the court answered questions like this before? And if so, what do the courts say?"}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, there's obviously deep and fascinating disagreements among people about how exactly courts should do that, but one place where you could start, and I think there'd be common ground here, is that all justices believe that it's important to ask, well, how has the Supreme Court answered questions like this in the past? So the first place you would look would be to the court's own precedence, right? Has the court answered questions like this before? And if so, what do the courts say? Because there is a strong sense that the rule of law needs predictability and consistency, and so courts really do make an effort to have their rulings be consistent over time. You might also be interested in empirical facts. What would be the effect of a particular decision on the country?"}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if so, what do the courts say? Because there is a strong sense that the rule of law needs predictability and consistency, and so courts really do make an effort to have their rulings be consistent over time. You might also be interested in empirical facts. What would be the effect of a particular decision on the country? You might also be interested in theories of natural law, which we talked about in discussing the Ninth Amendment. Are there, even if the right being asserted isn't written down in the Constitution, is there some case that it is rooted in the history and tradition of our law, and that it might come from sources like God or nature and not government? Generally, judges have been reluctant to enforce rights, natural rights, that don't have a positive foundation."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What would be the effect of a particular decision on the country? You might also be interested in theories of natural law, which we talked about in discussing the Ninth Amendment. Are there, even if the right being asserted isn't written down in the Constitution, is there some case that it is rooted in the history and tradition of our law, and that it might come from sources like God or nature and not government? Generally, judges have been reluctant to enforce rights, natural rights, that don't have a positive foundation. A positive right is a right that's written down or codified in some explicit way. A natural right comes from God or nature, but in practice, most of the natural rights have tended to be codified in history or tradition in state constitutions or state laws, so those would be other places you'd look to. But what's really important for viewers to remember, and I want all of you guys to try to do this yourselves, try this yourselves at home, separate your constitutional conclusions from your political conclusions."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Generally, judges have been reluctant to enforce rights, natural rights, that don't have a positive foundation. A positive right is a right that's written down or codified in some explicit way. A natural right comes from God or nature, but in practice, most of the natural rights have tended to be codified in history or tradition in state constitutions or state laws, so those would be other places you'd look to. But what's really important for viewers to remember, and I want all of you guys to try to do this yourselves, try this yourselves at home, separate your constitutional conclusions from your political conclusions. When you're evaluating a law, don't ask, do I think that this form of, say, gun control regulation is a good or bad idea as a policy matter? Ask yourself, do I think the Second Amendment allows or prohibits it? And entertain the possibility that your constitutional conclusions might diverge from your political conclusions."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what's really important for viewers to remember, and I want all of you guys to try to do this yourselves, try this yourselves at home, separate your constitutional conclusions from your political conclusions. When you're evaluating a law, don't ask, do I think that this form of, say, gun control regulation is a good or bad idea as a policy matter? Ask yourself, do I think the Second Amendment allows or prohibits it? And entertain the possibility that your constitutional conclusions might diverge from your political conclusions. You might think gun control is a good idea, but the Second Amendment prohibits it, or it's a bad idea, but the Constitution allows it. And that basic separation of political from constitutional conclusions is central to Hamilton's very theory of judicial review, because that's what stops judges from being policy makers in robes and ensures that they're preferring the will of the people expressed in the Constitution to those of the legislatures, which represent fallible policy views. As we learn from early cases like Marbury versus Madison, and then even later cases like Brown versus Board of Education, the Supreme Court can render decisions that then no one enforces."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And entertain the possibility that your constitutional conclusions might diverge from your political conclusions. You might think gun control is a good idea, but the Second Amendment prohibits it, or it's a bad idea, but the Constitution allows it. And that basic separation of political from constitutional conclusions is central to Hamilton's very theory of judicial review, because that's what stops judges from being policy makers in robes and ensures that they're preferring the will of the people expressed in the Constitution to those of the legislatures, which represent fallible policy views. As we learn from early cases like Marbury versus Madison, and then even later cases like Brown versus Board of Education, the Supreme Court can render decisions that then no one enforces. So how has the Supreme Court avoided becoming kind of a moot point? Yeah, there's a story, and it might be apocryphal, but it's a good story anyway, that President Andrew Jackson said, after the Supreme Court issued an opinion that he didn't like, he said, well, the Supreme Court has issued its opinion, now let them enforce it, and basically making the point that all they could do was issue an opinion, and it was up to others to decide to comply. I think, you know, American culture, and this is something for us to be grateful for, it's been built up over a long time, has generally been that we have a strong norm that elected officials should follow the law as it's been declared by the federal courts."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "As we learn from early cases like Marbury versus Madison, and then even later cases like Brown versus Board of Education, the Supreme Court can render decisions that then no one enforces. So how has the Supreme Court avoided becoming kind of a moot point? Yeah, there's a story, and it might be apocryphal, but it's a good story anyway, that President Andrew Jackson said, after the Supreme Court issued an opinion that he didn't like, he said, well, the Supreme Court has issued its opinion, now let them enforce it, and basically making the point that all they could do was issue an opinion, and it was up to others to decide to comply. I think, you know, American culture, and this is something for us to be grateful for, it's been built up over a long time, has generally been that we have a strong norm that elected officials should follow the law as it's been declared by the federal courts. Now, there've been, as you know, controversies about court decisions throughout our history, whether it was the Dred Scott case, which President Lincoln hated, or as you said, Brown versus Board, which was resisted by some Southern officials after it came down. The court's ability to get its judgments enforced depends on its credibility and on America's culture of respecting the rule of law. If the court's credibility goes away, or if Americans stop respecting the rule of law, then the court's judgments will have less force."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I think, you know, American culture, and this is something for us to be grateful for, it's been built up over a long time, has generally been that we have a strong norm that elected officials should follow the law as it's been declared by the federal courts. Now, there've been, as you know, controversies about court decisions throughout our history, whether it was the Dred Scott case, which President Lincoln hated, or as you said, Brown versus Board, which was resisted by some Southern officials after it came down. The court's ability to get its judgments enforced depends on its credibility and on America's culture of respecting the rule of law. If the court's credibility goes away, or if Americans stop respecting the rule of law, then the court's judgments will have less force. So the Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review, which means that it reviews the actions of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and can declare those actions unconstitutional. Do you think the framers intended for the court to use that power to check the other branches of government? Most scholars would agree that it was widely believed that the Supreme Court would have the power to review the acts of both other federal officials and of state governments, and to decide whether or not those acts were consistent with the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If the court's credibility goes away, or if Americans stop respecting the rule of law, then the court's judgments will have less force. So the Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review, which means that it reviews the actions of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and can declare those actions unconstitutional. Do you think the framers intended for the court to use that power to check the other branches of government? Most scholars would agree that it was widely believed that the Supreme Court would have the power to review the acts of both other federal officials and of state governments, and to decide whether or not those acts were consistent with the Constitution. Now, there was a lot of disagreement about how excited people were about that power. And again, some people worried that the Supreme Court might abuse its power of judicial review. But the basic idea that it's one of the jobs of a court to make sure that the acts of other officials are constitutional, are consistent with the written Constitution, that idea preexisted Marbury."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Most scholars would agree that it was widely believed that the Supreme Court would have the power to review the acts of both other federal officials and of state governments, and to decide whether or not those acts were consistent with the Constitution. Now, there was a lot of disagreement about how excited people were about that power. And again, some people worried that the Supreme Court might abuse its power of judicial review. But the basic idea that it's one of the jobs of a court to make sure that the acts of other officials are constitutional, are consistent with the written Constitution, that idea preexisted Marbury. That idea was clearly in the minds of the founders when they created the Supreme Court. And I'm happy to say, yes, the framers did intend for the courts to have the power of judicial review. And I'm confident of that, both because the power was exercised by courts before and after the framing, and also because Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 so explicitly puts the case for judicial review."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the basic idea that it's one of the jobs of a court to make sure that the acts of other officials are constitutional, are consistent with the written Constitution, that idea preexisted Marbury. That idea was clearly in the minds of the founders when they created the Supreme Court. And I'm happy to say, yes, the framers did intend for the courts to have the power of judicial review. And I'm confident of that, both because the power was exercised by courts before and after the framing, and also because Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 so explicitly puts the case for judicial review. It's such a shame that in that great musical, we've got the room where it happened, but we don't have the judicial review where it happened, because it would be a great song about why Hamilton thought that judicial review followed logically from the very theory of popular sovereignty. It really isn't the job of unelected judges to try to update and improve the Constitution that the people ratified. In some cases, this isn't much of a challenge, but in others, say in cases having to do with the freedom of speech, or in cases having to do with the war powers and so on, it can be a challenge."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I'm confident of that, both because the power was exercised by courts before and after the framing, and also because Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 so explicitly puts the case for judicial review. It's such a shame that in that great musical, we've got the room where it happened, but we don't have the judicial review where it happened, because it would be a great song about why Hamilton thought that judicial review followed logically from the very theory of popular sovereignty. It really isn't the job of unelected judges to try to update and improve the Constitution that the people ratified. In some cases, this isn't much of a challenge, but in others, say in cases having to do with the freedom of speech, or in cases having to do with the war powers and so on, it can be a challenge. It can be a challenge to figure out what exactly the provision meant to those who ratified it, and it can be a challenge to decide whether, if at all, the original meaning needs to be updated in light of more current events. Now, there's of course much to say in response to Hamilton, and we could have a whole constitutional law course on the responses to Hamilton. His very theory of judicial review is premised on the idea that the Constitution represents the will of the people more emblematically or profoundly or fundamentally than those of ordinary laws."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In some cases, this isn't much of a challenge, but in others, say in cases having to do with the freedom of speech, or in cases having to do with the war powers and so on, it can be a challenge. It can be a challenge to figure out what exactly the provision meant to those who ratified it, and it can be a challenge to decide whether, if at all, the original meaning needs to be updated in light of more current events. Now, there's of course much to say in response to Hamilton, and we could have a whole constitutional law course on the responses to Hamilton. His very theory of judicial review is premised on the idea that the Constitution represents the will of the people more emblematically or profoundly or fundamentally than those of ordinary laws. And the obvious first response is, hey, how can you say that the will of a bunch of dead white guys from 1787 really represents the will of we the people today more accurately than a law that Congress passes? And the answer to the objection is, well, it's because the Constitution was passed by a special procedure. It was unusually deliberative."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "His very theory of judicial review is premised on the idea that the Constitution represents the will of the people more emblematically or profoundly or fundamentally than those of ordinary laws. And the obvious first response is, hey, how can you say that the will of a bunch of dead white guys from 1787 really represents the will of we the people today more accurately than a law that Congress passes? And the answer to the objection is, well, it's because the Constitution was passed by a special procedure. It was unusually deliberative. It took a long time to propose, and it didn't gain the status of supreme law until it was ratified by special conventions that were specially called for the purpose, and it was that long process of deliberation that gives that constitutional text the right to speak in we the people's name. How could the legislative or executive branch check the power of the Supreme Court? Yeah, our Constitution has a number of these interesting checks and balances features, right?"}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It was unusually deliberative. It took a long time to propose, and it didn't gain the status of supreme law until it was ratified by special conventions that were specially called for the purpose, and it was that long process of deliberation that gives that constitutional text the right to speak in we the people's name. How could the legislative or executive branch check the power of the Supreme Court? Yeah, our Constitution has a number of these interesting checks and balances features, right? So the three branches are distinct, but there's various ways in which they get into each other's business, right? The president can veto a law. The president appoints justices, but of course, the Senate has the say about whether to confirm them and so on, so the branches are separate, but they are related and they check each other."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, our Constitution has a number of these interesting checks and balances features, right? So the three branches are distinct, but there's various ways in which they get into each other's business, right? The president can veto a law. The president appoints justices, but of course, the Senate has the say about whether to confirm them and so on, so the branches are separate, but they are related and they check each other. Well, we remember from the text of Article III that the Constitution authorizes Congress to set up such inferior courts as it may from time to time choose to ordain and establish. Congress didn't have to create inferior courts. It can create them, it can change them."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The president appoints justices, but of course, the Senate has the say about whether to confirm them and so on, so the branches are separate, but they are related and they check each other. Well, we remember from the text of Article III that the Constitution authorizes Congress to set up such inferior courts as it may from time to time choose to ordain and establish. Congress didn't have to create inferior courts. It can create them, it can change them. There's a debate right now about whether the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which occupies much of the West, should be split up, and Congress can split it up if it wants. Congress can change the number of Supreme Court justices."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It can create them, it can change them. There's a debate right now about whether the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which occupies much of the West, should be split up, and Congress can split it up if it wants. Congress can change the number of Supreme Court justices. There were originally six justices, and the number went up and down before settling around nine, or rather, settling at nine in the 1860s. So Congress could change the number of justices to punish a president on political grounds. When Thomas Jefferson was coming in after the election of 1800, the outgoing Federalist Congress was so determined to punish him that they changed the size of the Supreme Court to deny him the right to make any appointments."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Congress can change the number of Supreme Court justices. There were originally six justices, and the number went up and down before settling around nine, or rather, settling at nine in the 1860s. So Congress could change the number of justices to punish a president on political grounds. When Thomas Jefferson was coming in after the election of 1800, the outgoing Federalist Congress was so determined to punish him that they changed the size of the Supreme Court to deny him the right to make any appointments. The other branches can check the court in a number of ways. So the most dramatic would be, you know, you could impeach a justice for high crimes and misdemeanors. That doesn't happen very often."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When Thomas Jefferson was coming in after the election of 1800, the outgoing Federalist Congress was so determined to punish him that they changed the size of the Supreme Court to deny him the right to make any appointments. The other branches can check the court in a number of ways. So the most dramatic would be, you know, you could impeach a justice for high crimes and misdemeanors. That doesn't happen very often. Another way, which doesn't happen all that often, but could, is Congress can check the court by, for example, not funding it, or by limiting the issues that the court is allowed to hear. Congress can control what's called the jurisdiction of the court. The court only gets to answer the questions that Congress gives it the power to answer."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That doesn't happen very often. Another way, which doesn't happen all that often, but could, is Congress can check the court by, for example, not funding it, or by limiting the issues that the court is allowed to hear. Congress can control what's called the jurisdiction of the court. The court only gets to answer the questions that Congress gives it the power to answer. Now again, Congress is reluctant to do that, but it has sometimes in the past, and it could if Congress thought it were necessary. Congress can engage in jurisdiction stripping. There's only a small category of cases that the Supreme Court is required to hear, but broadly, the court has a broad discretion over its docket, and if Congress wanted to say, hey, Supreme Court, you're not allowed to hear any cases involving abortion, for example, it arguably could do that, although such a law might be constitutionally challenged."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The court only gets to answer the questions that Congress gives it the power to answer. Now again, Congress is reluctant to do that, but it has sometimes in the past, and it could if Congress thought it were necessary. Congress can engage in jurisdiction stripping. There's only a small category of cases that the Supreme Court is required to hear, but broadly, the court has a broad discretion over its docket, and if Congress wanted to say, hey, Supreme Court, you're not allowed to hear any cases involving abortion, for example, it arguably could do that, although such a law might be constitutionally challenged. I remember being in law school just kind of indignant at the idea that Congress could violate the separation of powers so flagrantly. My great law professor, Akhil Amar, convinced me that this had been done throughout American history, that before, during the Civil War, Congress deprived the court of the right to hear certain cases involving national security and so forth. So Congress can, if it chooses, exempt certain categories of cases, those that are not in the original jurisdiction of the court, from being heard."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's only a small category of cases that the Supreme Court is required to hear, but broadly, the court has a broad discretion over its docket, and if Congress wanted to say, hey, Supreme Court, you're not allowed to hear any cases involving abortion, for example, it arguably could do that, although such a law might be constitutionally challenged. I remember being in law school just kind of indignant at the idea that Congress could violate the separation of powers so flagrantly. My great law professor, Akhil Amar, convinced me that this had been done throughout American history, that before, during the Civil War, Congress deprived the court of the right to hear certain cases involving national security and so forth. So Congress can, if it chooses, exempt certain categories of cases, those that are not in the original jurisdiction of the court, from being heard. There's also the question of whether Congress could impose term limits for Supreme Court justices, and there's a proposal floating about to have 18-year terms for the justices and give each president the right to appoint two justices and have justices retire after 18-year terms. There's a vigorous debate about whether that could be done by an ordinary statute or whether it would require a constitutional amendment. Well, if you had to say there was one big takeaway about Article III that students should remember, what might it be?"}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So Congress can, if it chooses, exempt certain categories of cases, those that are not in the original jurisdiction of the court, from being heard. There's also the question of whether Congress could impose term limits for Supreme Court justices, and there's a proposal floating about to have 18-year terms for the justices and give each president the right to appoint two justices and have justices retire after 18-year terms. There's a vigorous debate about whether that could be done by an ordinary statute or whether it would require a constitutional amendment. Well, if you had to say there was one big takeaway about Article III that students should remember, what might it be? That when courts strike down laws as unconstitutional, they're not thwarting the will of the people, they're supposed to be supporting it, because the Constitution represents the will of the people, ordinary laws represent the will of our representatives, and the Constitution is supreme law, so that's why it trumps ordinary legislation. You know, Americans of good faith and good reason have been disagreeing about the court's role for a long time. I think a challenge for the court is finding the right balance between asserting its independence and exercising judicial review on the one hand, but on the other, being mindful of the fact that it is undemocratic, that judicial review sometimes involves setting aside what the people have decided they want, and that's an awesome power, and it shouldn't be overused."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, if you had to say there was one big takeaway about Article III that students should remember, what might it be? That when courts strike down laws as unconstitutional, they're not thwarting the will of the people, they're supposed to be supporting it, because the Constitution represents the will of the people, ordinary laws represent the will of our representatives, and the Constitution is supreme law, so that's why it trumps ordinary legislation. You know, Americans of good faith and good reason have been disagreeing about the court's role for a long time. I think a challenge for the court is finding the right balance between asserting its independence and exercising judicial review on the one hand, but on the other, being mindful of the fact that it is undemocratic, that judicial review sometimes involves setting aside what the people have decided they want, and that's an awesome power, and it shouldn't be overused. So the court, from time to time in history, has been criticized for perhaps going beyond what the Constitution actually requires, and instead enforcing perhaps their own policy preferences or their own political morality. So we've learned that Article III is crucial to the system of checks and balances that limits the power of government in the United States. The Supreme Court exercises judicial review to ensure that the executive branch and legislative branch act within the confines of the Constitution, but the other branches have plenty of checks on the judicial branch as well."}, {"video_title": "Article III of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I think a challenge for the court is finding the right balance between asserting its independence and exercising judicial review on the one hand, but on the other, being mindful of the fact that it is undemocratic, that judicial review sometimes involves setting aside what the people have decided they want, and that's an awesome power, and it shouldn't be overused. So the court, from time to time in history, has been criticized for perhaps going beyond what the Constitution actually requires, and instead enforcing perhaps their own policy preferences or their own political morality. So we've learned that Article III is crucial to the system of checks and balances that limits the power of government in the United States. The Supreme Court exercises judicial review to ensure that the executive branch and legislative branch act within the confines of the Constitution, but the other branches have plenty of checks on the judicial branch as well. One of the most central questions about the Supreme Court is the relevance of the Constitution to the issues we face today. As Richard Garnett points out, some scholars might say it's undemocratic to overrule the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives based on the Constitution, but as Jeff Rosen argues, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and therefore striking down a law as unconstitutional isn't thwarting the will of the people, but rather preserving it. To learn more about Article III, visit the National Constitution Center's interactive constitution and Khan Academy's resources on US government and politics."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Alan Gura is a lawyer who successfully argued two landmark Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court. Adam Winkler is a professor at UCLA Law and the author of Gunfight, the battle over the right to bear arms in America. So Professor Winkler, why did the framers include an amendment on the rights to keep and bear arms? Well, really there's been some debate over what the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms is, but the most common view, and the view supported by the United States Supreme Court, is that the Second Amendment protects individual liberty, in particular, the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Back in the founding era, the framers were concerned about self-defense in terms of armed state militias, made up of common citizens who would prevent federal overreach. So the federal government wouldn't be able to run roughshod over the liberties of the people because of these armed state militias. And so the Second Amendment was in part about protecting those armed state militias."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, really there's been some debate over what the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms is, but the most common view, and the view supported by the United States Supreme Court, is that the Second Amendment protects individual liberty, in particular, the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Back in the founding era, the framers were concerned about self-defense in terms of armed state militias, made up of common citizens who would prevent federal overreach. So the federal government wouldn't be able to run roughshod over the liberties of the people because of these armed state militias. And so the Second Amendment was in part about protecting those armed state militias. Indeed, the fear behind all of the Bill of Rights was that the Constitution gave the new federal government too much power, and the federal government would use that power to inhibit liberty. And so that was the self-defense of the founding era. When we look at the text, the first thing that people should focus on is the phrase, the right of the people, and in particular, the word the before right."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the Second Amendment was in part about protecting those armed state militias. Indeed, the fear behind all of the Bill of Rights was that the Constitution gave the new federal government too much power, and the federal government would use that power to inhibit liberty. And so that was the self-defense of the founding era. When we look at the text, the first thing that people should focus on is the phrase, the right of the people, and in particular, the word the before right. I think that might be actually the most important word in the amendment, because what it tells us is that the right of the people, which is the subject of this amendment, is a preexisting right. And the fact that this was a preexisting right tells us that the framers thought that there was something that was out there in their legal system that they were preserving against violation. And in fact, that is the case."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When we look at the text, the first thing that people should focus on is the phrase, the right of the people, and in particular, the word the before right. I think that might be actually the most important word in the amendment, because what it tells us is that the right of the people, which is the subject of this amendment, is a preexisting right. And the fact that this was a preexisting right tells us that the framers thought that there was something that was out there in their legal system that they were preserving against violation. And in fact, that is the case. In English law, since well before the revolution, it had been settled and determined that people had an individual right to have arms for self-protection. And this right was understood to enable people to protect themselves both against criminal private violence, as well as the right of people to protect themselves against some encroachment upon their liberties by a tyrant or by a misguided king. This was a right that the framers were well acquainted with in English law, and they were very perturbed that the British, during the time of the revolution, were violating this right."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And in fact, that is the case. In English law, since well before the revolution, it had been settled and determined that people had an individual right to have arms for self-protection. And this right was understood to enable people to protect themselves both against criminal private violence, as well as the right of people to protect themselves against some encroachment upon their liberties by a tyrant or by a misguided king. This was a right that the framers were well acquainted with in English law, and they were very perturbed that the British, during the time of the revolution, were violating this right. There were various instances of the British disarming Americans, obviously in an attempt to keep the colonists from revolting and an attempt to prevent them from resisting the king. The Battle of Lexington and Concord, of course, which started the revolution, was nothing but a British march upon the armories in those towns in the attempt to suppress the right to arms. And so what you saw was, when the time came for a Bill of Rights, you saw five out of seven states propose a Bill of Rights, and the only provisions common in all the demands for a Bill of Rights were the right to religious freedom and the right to arms."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This was a right that the framers were well acquainted with in English law, and they were very perturbed that the British, during the time of the revolution, were violating this right. There were various instances of the British disarming Americans, obviously in an attempt to keep the colonists from revolting and an attempt to prevent them from resisting the king. The Battle of Lexington and Concord, of course, which started the revolution, was nothing but a British march upon the armories in those towns in the attempt to suppress the right to arms. And so what you saw was, when the time came for a Bill of Rights, you saw five out of seven states propose a Bill of Rights, and the only provisions common in all the demands for a Bill of Rights were the right to religious freedom and the right to arms. Now, the framers were not necessarily concerned about this sort of modern gun control, which is in controversy today. Today, we have a different kind of self-defense we generally think about with the Second Amendment, and that's about individuals defending themselves against criminals. It's a very personal kind of liberty, defending yourself against someone trying to take away your life, your health, your property, the life of your loved ones."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so what you saw was, when the time came for a Bill of Rights, you saw five out of seven states propose a Bill of Rights, and the only provisions common in all the demands for a Bill of Rights were the right to religious freedom and the right to arms. Now, the framers were not necessarily concerned about this sort of modern gun control, which is in controversy today. Today, we have a different kind of self-defense we generally think about with the Second Amendment, and that's about individuals defending themselves against criminals. It's a very personal kind of liberty, defending yourself against someone trying to take away your life, your health, your property, the life of your loved ones. And one thing that I think to remember is that this kind of change in the meaning of a constitutional amendment over time is very common among our constitutional rights, as we take the underlying principles that are embodied in the text, and we apply them to modern circumstances. What about in this early period with the Articles of Confederation? Did state constitutions also protect the right to bear arms?"}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's a very personal kind of liberty, defending yourself against someone trying to take away your life, your health, your property, the life of your loved ones. And one thing that I think to remember is that this kind of change in the meaning of a constitutional amendment over time is very common among our constitutional rights, as we take the underlying principles that are embodied in the text, and we apply them to modern circumstances. What about in this early period with the Articles of Confederation? Did state constitutions also protect the right to bear arms? Yes, there were state constitutions that protected the right to bear arms, most notably the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provided, quote, that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. In Vermont's constitution the following year, Chapter 1, Article 15 copied that language, and you would see other late 18th century, early 19th century constitutions keep this language or some version of it. And what you would notice is that this language, of course, talks about the two dimensions of the right to bear arms."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Did state constitutions also protect the right to bear arms? Yes, there were state constitutions that protected the right to bear arms, most notably the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provided, quote, that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. In Vermont's constitution the following year, Chapter 1, Article 15 copied that language, and you would see other late 18th century, early 19th century constitutions keep this language or some version of it. And what you would notice is that this language, of course, talks about the two dimensions of the right to bear arms. The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, that can only be interpreted as self-defense, and also for the defense of the state, that is they can use those arms that they individually have and gather together and work to defend the society from some force that's attacking them. This is really fascinating. So my background is in US history, and I know that one of the reasons that the framers decided that they needed a constitution that would change the form of the US government from what it had been under the Articles of Confederation was Shays' Rebellion, when a group of armed farmers from Western Massachusetts marched on Springfield."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what you would notice is that this language, of course, talks about the two dimensions of the right to bear arms. The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, that can only be interpreted as self-defense, and also for the defense of the state, that is they can use those arms that they individually have and gather together and work to defend the society from some force that's attacking them. This is really fascinating. So my background is in US history, and I know that one of the reasons that the framers decided that they needed a constitution that would change the form of the US government from what it had been under the Articles of Confederation was Shays' Rebellion, when a group of armed farmers from Western Massachusetts marched on Springfield. So they had kind of taken their military past as a militia in the Revolutionary War, and then turned that against the new US government instead of the British government. Did the framers have any reservations about trying to protect militias in light of Shays' Rebellion? The founders did have concerns about armed militias as exemplified by Shays' Rebellion."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So my background is in US history, and I know that one of the reasons that the framers decided that they needed a constitution that would change the form of the US government from what it had been under the Articles of Confederation was Shays' Rebellion, when a group of armed farmers from Western Massachusetts marched on Springfield. So they had kind of taken their military past as a militia in the Revolutionary War, and then turned that against the new US government instead of the British government. Did the framers have any reservations about trying to protect militias in light of Shays' Rebellion? The founders did have concerns about armed militias as exemplified by Shays' Rebellion. They were worried about self-proclaimed militias, groups of basically armed uprisings in disguise that claim the mantle of a militia, but were really just troublemakers who were taking up arms. And that was kind of how Shays' Rebellion was thought of at the time. And that's why when we think about the Second Amendment, we should focus on that language that the framers were sure to include, which is that the militias must be well-regulated."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The founders did have concerns about armed militias as exemplified by Shays' Rebellion. They were worried about self-proclaimed militias, groups of basically armed uprisings in disguise that claim the mantle of a militia, but were really just troublemakers who were taking up arms. And that was kind of how Shays' Rebellion was thought of at the time. And that's why when we think about the Second Amendment, we should focus on that language that the framers were sure to include, which is that the militias must be well-regulated. So the Second Amendment itself says, a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And so they understood that there was a militia, common citizens who took up arms to help defend the state and nation, but they recognized that the militia must be well-regulated, disciplined, orderly, subject to appropriate command. It wasn't a right for any self-proclaimed group of radicals to get together and grab their guns."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's why when we think about the Second Amendment, we should focus on that language that the framers were sure to include, which is that the militias must be well-regulated. So the Second Amendment itself says, a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And so they understood that there was a militia, common citizens who took up arms to help defend the state and nation, but they recognized that the militia must be well-regulated, disciplined, orderly, subject to appropriate command. It wasn't a right for any self-proclaimed group of radicals to get together and grab their guns. It was instead a right to have an orderly state militia, which was an important source of national defense at the time of the founding era. So I see that the Second Amendment and the Third Amendment, which bans the government from quartering soldiers in people's houses, both reflect fears about standing armies and also the dangers of having very strong government military power. But today we have a very strong government military power and a standing army."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It wasn't a right for any self-proclaimed group of radicals to get together and grab their guns. It was instead a right to have an orderly state militia, which was an important source of national defense at the time of the founding era. So I see that the Second Amendment and the Third Amendment, which bans the government from quartering soldiers in people's houses, both reflect fears about standing armies and also the dangers of having very strong government military power. But today we have a very strong government military power and a standing army. So to what extent are those concerns still relevant today? Well, those concerns are still relevant today. We're very blessed in America that we have a long tradition of civilian control over the military."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But today we have a very strong government military power and a standing army. So to what extent are those concerns still relevant today? Well, those concerns are still relevant today. We're very blessed in America that we have a long tradition of civilian control over the military. And in our culture, the military has not been used to suppress the people. That's our experience, but it has been the experience, sadly, in many other places, including through today. And what the Second Amendment reflects is the notion that the government should not have a monopoly on force."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We're very blessed in America that we have a long tradition of civilian control over the military. And in our culture, the military has not been used to suppress the people. That's our experience, but it has been the experience, sadly, in many other places, including through today. And what the Second Amendment reflects is the notion that the government should not have a monopoly on force. There has to be some means that people might still retain the ability to act, to defend themselves, whether that's against a private individual felon miscreant or whether it's against something more nefarious. Our understanding of what's necessary for national defense is very different than it was in the founding era because our society is so much different. We don't have militias of ordinary citizens the way we once did back in the founding era."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what the Second Amendment reflects is the notion that the government should not have a monopoly on force. There has to be some means that people might still retain the ability to act, to defend themselves, whether that's against a private individual felon miscreant or whether it's against something more nefarious. Our understanding of what's necessary for national defense is very different than it was in the founding era because our society is so much different. We don't have militias of ordinary citizens the way we once did back in the founding era. And we don't have troops occupying people's homes the way the founders did. But nonetheless, I think the Second and Third Amendment both have principles embodied in that text that remain relevant for today and should not be thought of as dead letters just because the particular concerns that gave rise to them no longer remain our concerns because the principles they embody are more important and more enduring. We have been blessed with peaceful transitions of power, with a vibrant democracy."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We don't have militias of ordinary citizens the way we once did back in the founding era. And we don't have troops occupying people's homes the way the founders did. But nonetheless, I think the Second and Third Amendment both have principles embodied in that text that remain relevant for today and should not be thought of as dead letters just because the particular concerns that gave rise to them no longer remain our concerns because the principles they embody are more important and more enduring. We have been blessed with peaceful transitions of power, with a vibrant democracy. Perhaps at least some aspect of our happy experience relative to those of our friends and ancestors in Europe is that we do have a culture that includes a widespread private arms. And that may have a beneficial effect in making sure that everybody plays by the rules and observes normal political conventions and norms. So what are some of the major Supreme Court cases that have shaped our understanding of the Second Amendment?"}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We have been blessed with peaceful transitions of power, with a vibrant democracy. Perhaps at least some aspect of our happy experience relative to those of our friends and ancestors in Europe is that we do have a culture that includes a widespread private arms. And that may have a beneficial effect in making sure that everybody plays by the rules and observes normal political conventions and norms. So what are some of the major Supreme Court cases that have shaped our understanding of the Second Amendment? The first one was a case called United States versus Miller that arose in the 1930s. In Miller, you had a situation where an individual was a gangster and he was caught with a sawed-off shotgun, which at the time, and still now does require a special tax stamp that Mr. Miller did not have. And he argued that the Second Amendment secured his right to this weapon."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what are some of the major Supreme Court cases that have shaped our understanding of the Second Amendment? The first one was a case called United States versus Miller that arose in the 1930s. In Miller, you had a situation where an individual was a gangster and he was caught with a sawed-off shotgun, which at the time, and still now does require a special tax stamp that Mr. Miller did not have. And he argued that the Second Amendment secured his right to this weapon. The government took the case to the Supreme Court and at the conclusion of a somewhat confused opinion, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the district court for a determination as to whether or not the sawed-off shotgun was an arm of the type whose possession is protected by the Second Amendment. Subsequently, Mr. Miller was murdered, so perhaps he needed a gun of some kind after all, but we never got the answer to that question. So I would read that case as other people do and say, look, obviously the Supreme Court thought there was some individual right to arms."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he argued that the Second Amendment secured his right to this weapon. The government took the case to the Supreme Court and at the conclusion of a somewhat confused opinion, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the district court for a determination as to whether or not the sawed-off shotgun was an arm of the type whose possession is protected by the Second Amendment. Subsequently, Mr. Miller was murdered, so perhaps he needed a gun of some kind after all, but we never got the answer to that question. So I would read that case as other people do and say, look, obviously the Supreme Court thought there was some individual right to arms. If the court had held that there's no individual right to arms, it would have been a much simpler opinion. They would have just said so and that would have been the end of the matter. But instead, because more evidence was needed relating to whether or not this was an arm of the type that Mr. Miller could possess, that shows that there was some right there at issue."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So I would read that case as other people do and say, look, obviously the Supreme Court thought there was some individual right to arms. If the court had held that there's no individual right to arms, it would have been a much simpler opinion. They would have just said so and that would have been the end of the matter. But instead, because more evidence was needed relating to whether or not this was an arm of the type that Mr. Miller could possess, that shows that there was some right there at issue. Much more helpful, of course, is the case that I argued in the Supreme Court, D.C. versus Heller, which was a coherent, detailed, fully briefed, and exhaustively opined matter which struck down various Washington, D.C. gun control laws. The main laws at issue in Heller were a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of all handguns by people effectively, and also a law that prohibited people from having operative firearms in their home. You could have a long gun, a rifle, or a shotgun in your home in D.C., but you could never render that operational for use in self-defense inside your home."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But instead, because more evidence was needed relating to whether or not this was an arm of the type that Mr. Miller could possess, that shows that there was some right there at issue. Much more helpful, of course, is the case that I argued in the Supreme Court, D.C. versus Heller, which was a coherent, detailed, fully briefed, and exhaustively opined matter which struck down various Washington, D.C. gun control laws. The main laws at issue in Heller were a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of all handguns by people effectively, and also a law that prohibited people from having operative firearms in their home. You could have a long gun, a rifle, or a shotgun in your home in D.C., but you could never render that operational for use in self-defense inside your home. Oddly enough, you could use it in self-defense in a place of business, just not at your home. The most important case on the Second Amendment is District of Columbia against Heller, where the court held for the very first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms and struck down a gun control law. That was a very important case, a landmark ruling that has led to many, many, many court cases challenging the constitutionality of a wide number of gun control laws."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You could have a long gun, a rifle, or a shotgun in your home in D.C., but you could never render that operational for use in self-defense inside your home. Oddly enough, you could use it in self-defense in a place of business, just not at your home. The most important case on the Second Amendment is District of Columbia against Heller, where the court held for the very first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms and struck down a gun control law. That was a very important case, a landmark ruling that has led to many, many, many court cases challenging the constitutionality of a wide number of gun control laws. The Supreme Court has not, again, stepped into the Second Amendment, with one exception. The court, in a case called McDonald v. City of Chicago, held that the Second Amendment applied equally to the federal government and to the state and local governments. One thing to remember about our constitutional rights is that they don't automatically apply to the state and local governments."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That was a very important case, a landmark ruling that has led to many, many, many court cases challenging the constitutionality of a wide number of gun control laws. The Supreme Court has not, again, stepped into the Second Amendment, with one exception. The court, in a case called McDonald v. City of Chicago, held that the Second Amendment applied equally to the federal government and to the state and local governments. One thing to remember about our constitutional rights is that they don't automatically apply to the state and local governments. But the McDonald case held that the Second Amendment and the principles of the Second Amendment nonetheless apply to the states as well. And that's pretty common as well. Over the course of the 20th century, the Supreme Court has held that nearly all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply equally to the state and local governments."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One thing to remember about our constitutional rights is that they don't automatically apply to the state and local governments. But the McDonald case held that the Second Amendment and the principles of the Second Amendment nonetheless apply to the states as well. And that's pretty common as well. Over the course of the 20th century, the Supreme Court has held that nearly all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply equally to the state and local governments. How about limits on the Second Amendment? I mean, I couldn't own a tank, right? What sort of limits may the government place on the right to keep and bear arms?"}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Over the course of the 20th century, the Supreme Court has held that nearly all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply equally to the state and local governments. How about limits on the Second Amendment? I mean, I couldn't own a tank, right? What sort of limits may the government place on the right to keep and bear arms? Well, the Second Amendment, like other rights, has some limitations. The first limitations are, of course, as with all rights, given to us by the scope of the actual rights. There are many things that simply aren't included in a particular right."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What sort of limits may the government place on the right to keep and bear arms? Well, the Second Amendment, like other rights, has some limitations. The first limitations are, of course, as with all rights, given to us by the scope of the actual rights. There are many things that simply aren't included in a particular right. The right of free speech, for example, guarantees you the right to speak in some ways. But perjury is speech, terroristic threats are speech, extortion is a form of speech. None of those are traditionally protected."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There are many things that simply aren't included in a particular right. The right of free speech, for example, guarantees you the right to speak in some ways. But perjury is speech, terroristic threats are speech, extortion is a form of speech. None of those are traditionally protected. And likewise, there are going to be some arms that are going to fall outside of Second Amendment protection. The Heller case tells us how to go about discovering those limits. The amendment, we are told, presupposes that people will have arms that people would expect to find in common use for traditional lawful purposes."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "None of those are traditionally protected. And likewise, there are going to be some arms that are going to fall outside of Second Amendment protection. The Heller case tells us how to go about discovering those limits. The amendment, we are told, presupposes that people will have arms that people would expect to find in common use for traditional lawful purposes. And so while a handgun or a rifle is a type of arm that people would keep for self-defense, for hunting, for sport, a tank or a bazooka is usually not something that you would wish to access for some traditional recognized lawful activity, right? I mean, very few people would use a tank to defend themselves against a mugger on the street, right? I mean, as a matter of practicality, even if we didn't have a Second Amendment, there's no possible way we're going to disarm the entire civilian population."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The amendment, we are told, presupposes that people will have arms that people would expect to find in common use for traditional lawful purposes. And so while a handgun or a rifle is a type of arm that people would keep for self-defense, for hunting, for sport, a tank or a bazooka is usually not something that you would wish to access for some traditional recognized lawful activity, right? I mean, very few people would use a tank to defend themselves against a mugger on the street, right? I mean, as a matter of practicality, even if we didn't have a Second Amendment, there's no possible way we're going to disarm the entire civilian population. So the guns are here to stay. The question is how can we exist with civilian armament and good and effective gun control? And I think that history and tradition can provide some of those answers."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I mean, as a matter of practicality, even if we didn't have a Second Amendment, there's no possible way we're going to disarm the entire civilian population. So the guns are here to stay. The question is how can we exist with civilian armament and good and effective gun control? And I think that history and tradition can provide some of those answers. In the same way that we try to understand what does the text of the Constitution mean and what are the principles that that text embodies, we look to history and tradition, how Americans lived under that Constitution over these 200-odd years. We should also look to that history and tradition in seeing the limits of those constitutional rights. And one thing I think is very clear from the history and tradition of gun rights and gun regulation is that there's ample room to regulate firearms."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I think that history and tradition can provide some of those answers. In the same way that we try to understand what does the text of the Constitution mean and what are the principles that that text embodies, we look to history and tradition, how Americans lived under that Constitution over these 200-odd years. We should also look to that history and tradition in seeing the limits of those constitutional rights. And one thing I think is very clear from the history and tradition of gun rights and gun regulation is that there's ample room to regulate firearms. The Founding Fathers had gun control laws. We had gun control laws in the Wild West, even though that was the heart of America's gun culture. We've had gun control laws all through American history."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And one thing I think is very clear from the history and tradition of gun rights and gun regulation is that there's ample room to regulate firearms. The Founding Fathers had gun control laws. We had gun control laws in the Wild West, even though that was the heart of America's gun culture. We've had gun control laws all through American history. And they're part of the story of the Second Amendment as much as the six-shooter and the right to bear arms. So we've learned that the framers' concern over protecting the right to bear arms originated in the experiences of the American Revolution, in which militias played a central role in winning independence for the United States. But a lot has changed since the Revolution."}, {"video_title": "The Second Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We've had gun control laws all through American history. And they're part of the story of the Second Amendment as much as the six-shooter and the right to bear arms. So we've learned that the framers' concern over protecting the right to bear arms originated in the experiences of the American Revolution, in which militias played a central role in winning independence for the United States. But a lot has changed since the Revolution. The US military has grown and arms have gotten a lot more powerful. Alan Gura suggests that the lack of a government monopoly on force is a key component of the peaceful transitions of power that characterize American democracy. Adam Winkler, however, argues that there's always been some form of gun control in the United States, even in the Wild West."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What I want to talk about in this video, Jeffrey, is how has the powers of the president, how have they changed over time since the ratification of the Constitution? They've hugely expanded. It's so striking that the framers of the Constitution were concerned that Congress would be the most dangerous branch. They were so concerned about that that they split Congress in two and created this bicameral legislature, the House and Senate, in order to divide its powers. They would have been stunned to learn that the president is twice as powerful as Congress today. They created a unitary executive because they were less concerned about executive and congressional tyranny. It's really interesting to think about why that happened."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They were so concerned about that that they split Congress in two and created this bicameral legislature, the House and Senate, in order to divide its powers. They would have been stunned to learn that the president is twice as powerful as Congress today. They created a unitary executive because they were less concerned about executive and congressional tyranny. It's really interesting to think about why that happened. What do you mean by the president today is twice as powerful as Congress? I guess that was a hypothesis, but it's arguable that having assumed powers to deploy troops without congressional authorization, to target and kill American citizens abroad, to engage in executive orders without congressional approval, critics of the expansion of presidential power say that the president has usurped congressional authority. He's exceeded his power under the take care clause of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, and that in this way, presidential authority has hugely expanded while congressional authority has contracted."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's really interesting to think about why that happened. What do you mean by the president today is twice as powerful as Congress? I guess that was a hypothesis, but it's arguable that having assumed powers to deploy troops without congressional authorization, to target and kill American citizens abroad, to engage in executive orders without congressional approval, critics of the expansion of presidential power say that the president has usurped congressional authority. He's exceeded his power under the take care clause of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, and that in this way, presidential authority has hugely expanded while congressional authority has contracted. I see. What are the dynamics that allowed this to happen over the last several hundred years? Well, there's a wonderful essay on the National Constitution Center's interactive constitution by William Marshall."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's exceeded his power under the take care clause of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, and that in this way, presidential authority has hugely expanded while congressional authority has contracted. I see. What are the dynamics that allowed this to happen over the last several hundred years? Well, there's a wonderful essay on the National Constitution Center's interactive constitution by William Marshall. You can find it if you click on Article II, Section 3, and William Marshall is trying to figure out what some of these dynamics were. He comes up with a bunch of reasons why the president has been so dominant. First he says political culture."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, there's a wonderful essay on the National Constitution Center's interactive constitution by William Marshall. You can find it if you click on Article II, Section 3, and William Marshall is trying to figure out what some of these dynamics were. He comes up with a bunch of reasons why the president has been so dominant. First he says political culture. The president has become the focus of national power and culture in a way that he wasn't in a pre-internet, pre-television, pre-radio age. This was the case even during World War II when Justice Jackson and the steel seizure case that we talked about before talked about executive power having the advantage of concentration in a single head in whose choice a whole nation has a part, making them a focus of public hopes and expectations. But there's no question that the focus on the individual person of the presidency has vastly expanded."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "First he says political culture. The president has become the focus of national power and culture in a way that he wasn't in a pre-internet, pre-television, pre-radio age. This was the case even during World War II when Justice Jackson and the steel seizure case that we talked about before talked about executive power having the advantage of concentration in a single head in whose choice a whole nation has a part, making them a focus of public hopes and expectations. But there's no question that the focus on the individual person of the presidency has vastly expanded. It's just this idea that there's one person there, people associate that person, hey, they're our head of state. They put their hopes and fears on that person, that that just gives them inherently more power. And it does."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But there's no question that the focus on the individual person of the presidency has vastly expanded. It's just this idea that there's one person there, people associate that person, hey, they're our head of state. They put their hopes and fears on that person, that that just gives them inherently more power. And it does. And you can call it culture, you can call it celebrity, but it's so striking that the framers are so concerned that the president not be a king. And they reject Alexander Hamilton's suggestion, which again we know from the musical, that the president be elected for life. They want to have four-year terms."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it does. And you can call it culture, you can call it celebrity, but it's so striking that the framers are so concerned that the president not be a king. And they reject Alexander Hamilton's suggestion, which again we know from the musical, that the president be elected for life. They want to have four-year terms. And then subsequently a constitutional amendment is passed, the 22nd Amendment, to limit the president to only two terms. And despite all that, the presidency has expanded so much. It's not only the political culture."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They want to have four-year terms. And then subsequently a constitutional amendment is passed, the 22nd Amendment, to limit the president to only two terms. And despite all that, the presidency has expanded so much. It's not only the political culture. Marshall points to a bunch of other reasons. Executive branch precedents. Basically every president has been successful in asserting increasingly sweeping exercises of executive power."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's not only the political culture. Marshall points to a bunch of other reasons. Executive branch precedents. Basically every president has been successful in asserting increasingly sweeping exercises of executive power. This is a bipartisan phenomenon from President Clinton to George W. Bush to President Obama. The Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department has authorized increasingly sweeping exercises of executive authority. And we find presidents of both parties either criticized or praised for having established these executive branch precedents."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Basically every president has been successful in asserting increasingly sweeping exercises of executive power. This is a bipartisan phenomenon from President Clinton to George W. Bush to President Obama. The Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department has authorized increasingly sweeping exercises of executive authority. And we find presidents of both parties either criticized or praised for having established these executive branch precedents. There's also just the expansion. And just to make sure I understand, it's just this idea that even if you were just president and I come into office, I might even be more restrained, but then the next guy or gal that comes in can cite your presidency and say, hey, he did it, why shouldn't I be able to do it? So it's never gonna go back."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And we find presidents of both parties either criticized or praised for having established these executive branch precedents. There's also just the expansion. And just to make sure I understand, it's just this idea that even if you were just president and I come into office, I might even be more restrained, but then the next guy or gal that comes in can cite your presidency and say, hey, he did it, why shouldn't I be able to do it? So it's never gonna go back. Precedent will never take powers away, they'll only add to them. That's exactly right. And this really important but not so well-known office, the Office of Legal Counsel, which several Supreme Court justices have been the head of, is basically a mini-Supreme Court for the executive branch."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it's never gonna go back. Precedent will never take powers away, they'll only add to them. That's exactly right. And this really important but not so well-known office, the Office of Legal Counsel, which several Supreme Court justices have been the head of, is basically a mini-Supreme Court for the executive branch. And it issues opinions about what the president can do, and those opinions are relied on by subsequent presidents to justify the expansion of executive power. Fascinating. You know, not all presidents have taken this view."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this really important but not so well-known office, the Office of Legal Counsel, which several Supreme Court justices have been the head of, is basically a mini-Supreme Court for the executive branch. And it issues opinions about what the president can do, and those opinions are relied on by subsequent presidents to justify the expansion of executive power. Fascinating. You know, not all presidents have taken this view. I'm writing a book now about William Howard Taft, who was the only president who went on to become Chief Justice. And he thought, he had a very literalist or judicial conception of the presidency, he thought the president could only do what the Constitution explicitly authorized. He refused to take actions that he thought weren't authorized by the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You know, not all presidents have taken this view. I'm writing a book now about William Howard Taft, who was the only president who went on to become Chief Justice. And he thought, he had a very literalist or judicial conception of the presidency, he thought the president could only do what the Constitution explicitly authorized. He refused to take actions that he thought weren't authorized by the Constitution. And in this sense, he gives us a vision of what a more constitutionally constrained presidency would look like. But even though he did that, as we were just talking about, people who came after Taft could just cite people before Taft and say... Absolutely right."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He refused to take actions that he thought weren't authorized by the Constitution. And in this sense, he gives us a vision of what a more constitutionally constrained presidency would look like. But even though he did that, as we were just talking about, people who came after Taft could just cite people before Taft and say... Absolutely right. And I think Professor Theodore Roosevelt had the most sweeping conception of the presidency. He said the president can do whatever the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid, and his stewardship conception of the presidency definitely has been vindicated by time. And you'd have to say, presidents today are much more Rooseveltian than they are the heirs of William Howard Taft."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Absolutely right. And I think Professor Theodore Roosevelt had the most sweeping conception of the presidency. He said the president can do whatever the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid, and his stewardship conception of the presidency definitely has been vindicated by time. And you'd have to say, presidents today are much more Rooseveltian than they are the heirs of William Howard Taft. Yeah. So what other dynamics are at play? We talk about political culture, that celebrity into one person, this precedent that keeps expanding powers."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you'd have to say, presidents today are much more Rooseveltian than they are the heirs of William Howard Taft. Yeah. So what other dynamics are at play? We talk about political culture, that celebrity into one person, this precedent that keeps expanding powers. What else? Well, just the huge expansion of the federal government and the administrative state, and the growth of executive agencies in the post-New Deal period from the Environmental Protection Agency and even progressive era agencies like the Federal Trade Commission or the Federal Reserve, and workplace safety, National Park Management, smokestack emissions, college sports. There's almost no area of American life that these executive agencies don't regulate."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We talk about political culture, that celebrity into one person, this precedent that keeps expanding powers. What else? Well, just the huge expansion of the federal government and the administrative state, and the growth of executive agencies in the post-New Deal period from the Environmental Protection Agency and even progressive era agencies like the Federal Trade Commission or the Federal Reserve, and workplace safety, National Park Management, smokestack emissions, college sports. There's almost no area of American life that these executive agencies don't regulate. The president, by appointing the heads of these agencies and having the ability to fire them, can issue executive orders that have the force of law, even though they're not passed by Congress. And that can lead to really dramatic clashes between the president's use of executive orders and what Congress says that it actually intended, as we've seen during the Obama administration. So that's a big factor as well."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's almost no area of American life that these executive agencies don't regulate. The president, by appointing the heads of these agencies and having the ability to fire them, can issue executive orders that have the force of law, even though they're not passed by Congress. And that can lead to really dramatic clashes between the president's use of executive orders and what Congress says that it actually intended, as we've seen during the Obama administration. So that's a big factor as well. Yeah. And what other dynamics are there? Well, the modern world is moving a lot faster."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that's a big factor as well. Yeah. And what other dynamics are there? Well, the modern world is moving a lot faster. In an age of the internet and instant communication, there are a lot more emergencies. Attacks are much more sudden than they were at the time of the framing and have to be repelled more quickly. So just the speed of contemporary life has led to the president to assert new emergency powers."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the modern world is moving a lot faster. In an age of the internet and instant communication, there are a lot more emergencies. Attacks are much more sudden than they were at the time of the framing and have to be repelled more quickly. So just the speed of contemporary life has led to the president to assert new emergency powers. And then finally, and I'm just tracking William Marshall's great essay here, there's the rise of partisan politics because of Congress becoming so polarized. Often people in Congress see their responsibility to support their party rather than to take seriously their constitutional or institutional duties as legislatures. So they may be unwilling to check the president's power when their party is in the majority."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So just the speed of contemporary life has led to the president to assert new emergency powers. And then finally, and I'm just tracking William Marshall's great essay here, there's the rise of partisan politics because of Congress becoming so polarized. Often people in Congress see their responsibility to support their party rather than to take seriously their constitutional or institutional duties as legislatures. So they may be unwilling to check the president's power when their party is in the majority. They're just willing to write the president a blank check when he happens to be a member of their party. And I can see that when it's the same party in charge of Congress and the presidency. But what about when it's the other way around?"}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they may be unwilling to check the president's power when their party is in the majority. They're just willing to write the president a blank check when he happens to be a member of their party. And I can see that when it's the same party in charge of Congress and the presidency. But what about when it's the other way around? I see in recent times it seems like Congress is being very effective at limiting presidential power because of partisan politics. You do have either congressional inaction or refusal to act on presidential proposals. But often critics of congressional inaction complain Congress is refusing to veto bills, for example, sorry, to override presidential vetoes or to refuse to pass laws on constitutional grounds."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what about when it's the other way around? I see in recent times it seems like Congress is being very effective at limiting presidential power because of partisan politics. You do have either congressional inaction or refusal to act on presidential proposals. But often critics of congressional inaction complain Congress is refusing to veto bills, for example, sorry, to override presidential vetoes or to refuse to pass laws on constitutional grounds. Instead, they're filing lawsuits. They're kicking things up to the court. When President Obama issued his executive orders about immigration, there was a lawsuit filed."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But often critics of congressional inaction complain Congress is refusing to veto bills, for example, sorry, to override presidential vetoes or to refuse to pass laws on constitutional grounds. Instead, they're filing lawsuits. They're kicking things up to the court. When President Obama issued his executive orders about immigration, there was a lawsuit filed. So increasingly the judiciary is becoming the arbiter about disputes between Congress and the president. The framers expected a much more direct clash between the president and Congress and thought that both of those branches of government would make decisions on constitutional grounds and would directly check each other. It's this idea that instead of Congress passing legislation and then the president either signing them or vetoing them, that when you have this gridlock that the president starts taking more executive orders and then Congress takes the president to court over them."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When President Obama issued his executive orders about immigration, there was a lawsuit filed. So increasingly the judiciary is becoming the arbiter about disputes between Congress and the president. The framers expected a much more direct clash between the president and Congress and thought that both of those branches of government would make decisions on constitutional grounds and would directly check each other. It's this idea that instead of Congress passing legislation and then the president either signing them or vetoing them, that when you have this gridlock that the president starts taking more executive orders and then Congress takes the president to court over them. That's very well stated and it's definitely not what the framers intended. Interesting. So this is really funny."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's this idea that instead of Congress passing legislation and then the president either signing them or vetoing them, that when you have this gridlock that the president starts taking more executive orders and then Congress takes the president to court over them. That's very well stated and it's definitely not what the framers intended. Interesting. So this is really funny. Just to go over them once again, when you just have one person in charge and this is ... It starts with Washington who was this huge personality, obviously American hero. So that by itself put a lot of power in the president."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is really funny. Just to go over them once again, when you just have one person in charge and this is ... It starts with Washington who was this huge personality, obviously American hero. So that by itself put a lot of power in the president. Then every president comes along and maybe does a little bit more than the ones that came before it. Then anyone can cite that president and, hey, he pulled it off, why can't I? As you mentioned, the federal government is far, far, far larger than it was in the time of when the Constitution was written and in the time of Washington."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that by itself put a lot of power in the president. Then every president comes along and maybe does a little bit more than the ones that came before it. Then anyone can cite that president and, hey, he pulled it off, why can't I? As you mentioned, the federal government is far, far, far larger than it was in the time of when the Constitution was written and in the time of Washington. Just the speed with which things are happening, it's necessary for a president to, whether it's in war or regulation or other things, to just be able to take action quickly. Then finally, partisan politics, I guess that one it seems like could be debated either way depending on which parties are in power where. But it is fascinating."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "As you mentioned, the federal government is far, far, far larger than it was in the time of when the Constitution was written and in the time of Washington. Just the speed with which things are happening, it's necessary for a president to, whether it's in war or regulation or other things, to just be able to take action quickly. Then finally, partisan politics, I guess that one it seems like could be debated either way depending on which parties are in power where. But it is fascinating. It does seem like this has been a very clear trend over time. It's true. Those are all great reasons offered by William Marshall in his interactive Constitution essay."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it is fascinating. It does seem like this has been a very clear trend over time. It's true. Those are all great reasons offered by William Marshall in his interactive Constitution essay. There's one other factor and that is the fact that both branches, the president and Congress, are not evaluating their actions on constitutional grounds the way they used to. The president has the veto power under Article I, Section 7. At the time of the framing, the presidents often issued vetoes on constitutional grounds."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Those are all great reasons offered by William Marshall in his interactive Constitution essay. There's one other factor and that is the fact that both branches, the president and Congress, are not evaluating their actions on constitutional grounds the way they used to. The president has the veto power under Article I, Section 7. At the time of the framing, the presidents often issued vetoes on constitutional grounds. President Andrew Jackson, who vetoed the rechartering of the Second Bank of the United States, vetoed it on the grounds that he could veto any bill that he considered unconstitutional and he sided with Thomas Jefferson's view that the bank was unconstitutional, rejecting the view of Hamilton and George Washington that it was okay. But nowadays, presidents tend not to issue vetoes on constitutional grounds and Congress tends not to debate bills in constitutional terms. As a result, critics on both sides of the aisle say both branches are exceeding their constitutional powers and failing adequately to check the constitutional excesses of the other branch."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "At the time of the framing, the presidents often issued vetoes on constitutional grounds. President Andrew Jackson, who vetoed the rechartering of the Second Bank of the United States, vetoed it on the grounds that he could veto any bill that he considered unconstitutional and he sided with Thomas Jefferson's view that the bank was unconstitutional, rejecting the view of Hamilton and George Washington that it was okay. But nowadays, presidents tend not to issue vetoes on constitutional grounds and Congress tends not to debate bills in constitutional terms. As a result, critics on both sides of the aisle say both branches are exceeding their constitutional powers and failing adequately to check the constitutional excesses of the other branch. It's fascinating. It's something I never fully appreciated. What you mentioned is historically, Washington and Adams and Jefferson, they viewed their veto as kind of like a light Supreme Court a little bit, like is this constitutional or not and that's why I'll veto it."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "As a result, critics on both sides of the aisle say both branches are exceeding their constitutional powers and failing adequately to check the constitutional excesses of the other branch. It's fascinating. It's something I never fully appreciated. What you mentioned is historically, Washington and Adams and Jefferson, they viewed their veto as kind of like a light Supreme Court a little bit, like is this constitutional or not and that's why I'll veto it. But then later presidents started to say, no, if I just disagree with it, I just think it's a bad law, I will veto. Absolutely. And this idea that the Supreme Court is the sole authority arbiter of the constitutionality of laws would have surprised the framers."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What you mentioned is historically, Washington and Adams and Jefferson, they viewed their veto as kind of like a light Supreme Court a little bit, like is this constitutional or not and that's why I'll veto it. But then later presidents started to say, no, if I just disagree with it, I just think it's a bad law, I will veto. Absolutely. And this idea that the Supreme Court is the sole authority arbiter of the constitutionality of laws would have surprised the framers. They had a theory of departmentalism. They thought that all three branches had an obligation to evaluate the constitutionality of laws. Congress, when they passed a bill, the president when he signed it and the courts when they reviewed it and only when all three branches agreed could a law go into effect."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this idea that the Supreme Court is the sole authority arbiter of the constitutionality of laws would have surprised the framers. They had a theory of departmentalism. They thought that all three branches had an obligation to evaluate the constitutionality of laws. Congress, when they passed a bill, the president when he signed it and the courts when they reviewed it and only when all three branches agreed could a law go into effect. But that now we tend to punt all constitutional questions to the Supreme Court and that has left something of a vacuum on the side of the president and the Congress. Thanks so much for this, Jeffrey. Thank you."}, {"video_title": "Civic engagement   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We tend to think about community as a word that refers specifically to the physical location where you live, but you might belong to several different communities at once. Your city or town, yes, but also your school, or a club sport, or online gaming, or social media networks, or an identity group. Anytime you join together with others with a common interest, you're in a community. And when you work to promote the quality of life in a community, that's civic engagement. Civic engagement also doesn't only mean engaging with politics and government. That's one way of acting to affect change in a community. And remember that we define politics as a process by which people reach collective decisions, despite potentially diverging opinions that are generally regarded as binding on the group and enforced as common policy."}, {"video_title": "Civic engagement   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And when you work to promote the quality of life in a community, that's civic engagement. Civic engagement also doesn't only mean engaging with politics and government. That's one way of acting to affect change in a community. And remember that we define politics as a process by which people reach collective decisions, despite potentially diverging opinions that are generally regarded as binding on the group and enforced as common policy. But civic engagement also includes a whole spectrum of ways that people participate in self-governance, including interacting with government, volunteering in and serving their communities, and organizing for social, political, and economic causes. When someone works to make a difference in their community and develops the combination of knowledge, skills, values, and motivation in order to make a difference, they're practicing civic engagement. So what does civic engagement look like?"}, {"video_title": "Civic engagement   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And remember that we define politics as a process by which people reach collective decisions, despite potentially diverging opinions that are generally regarded as binding on the group and enforced as common policy. But civic engagement also includes a whole spectrum of ways that people participate in self-governance, including interacting with government, volunteering in and serving their communities, and organizing for social, political, and economic causes. When someone works to make a difference in their community and develops the combination of knowledge, skills, values, and motivation in order to make a difference, they're practicing civic engagement. So what does civic engagement look like? It could be many things. Here are a few examples. Organizing a voter registration drive, hosting a town meeting, or organizing a protest."}, {"video_title": "Civic engagement   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what does civic engagement look like? It could be many things. Here are a few examples. Organizing a voter registration drive, hosting a town meeting, or organizing a protest. It could also be raising awareness about community issues through a blog or website, helping others get the skills or resources that they need to succeed, or seeing a need in your community and filling it. I was on a hike last weekend and saw a ranger station that was built by an Eagle Scout. That's a perfect example of civic engagement."}, {"video_title": "Civic engagement   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Organizing a voter registration drive, hosting a town meeting, or organizing a protest. It could also be raising awareness about community issues through a blog or website, helping others get the skills or resources that they need to succeed, or seeing a need in your community and filling it. I was on a hike last weekend and saw a ranger station that was built by an Eagle Scout. That's a perfect example of civic engagement. Helping elementary school students build reading skills so that they can become strong citizens is a good example. So is volunteering to help rebuild after a hurricane, or making sure that a homeowner who's in a wheelchair has a ramp to get in and out of her house. So that's a very brief overview of civic engagement."}, {"video_title": "Civic engagement   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's a perfect example of civic engagement. Helping elementary school students build reading skills so that they can become strong citizens is a good example. So is volunteering to help rebuild after a hurricane, or making sure that a homeowner who's in a wheelchair has a ramp to get in and out of her house. So that's a very brief overview of civic engagement. Can you think of any other examples? What does a person do differently when they're practicing civic engagement versus when they're not? What forms of civic engagement do you see in the communities you belong to?"}, {"video_title": "How have Reagan's policies affected the government   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And on the New Deal side, that was what government should do. On the Reagan side, he said, get government out of the way and let American free enterprise and individual initiative create greatness in America again. And so that was just setting up that ideological conversation. Now continued all the way through Newt Gingrich's revolution in 1994 and his clashes with Bill Clinton. They were over the same kinds of things that Ronald Reagan had brought into the debate when he was elected in 1980. Now, the challenge was that Reagan's defense spending and his tax cuts ballooned the deficit. And what that ended up, what ended up happening is that the thing he had come to Washington to try to solve, which was the budget deficit, had actually gotten bigger."}, {"video_title": "How have Reagan's policies affected the government   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now continued all the way through Newt Gingrich's revolution in 1994 and his clashes with Bill Clinton. They were over the same kinds of things that Ronald Reagan had brought into the debate when he was elected in 1980. Now, the challenge was that Reagan's defense spending and his tax cuts ballooned the deficit. And what that ended up, what ended up happening is that the thing he had come to Washington to try to solve, which was the budget deficit, had actually gotten bigger. And so Reagan, who came to town as a tax cutter, ended up ultimately having to raise taxes to solve some of those problems of having a large deficit. And why is that bad? Because deficits lead to inflation, and inflation is what was strangling America when Reagan came into office."}, {"video_title": "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Many parts of the United States Constitution deal with rights of an individual, and many amendments talk about protecting or expanding the rights of an individual. But the 14th Amendment is perhaps one of the most important amendments in this discussion of protecting civil rights. And in particular, section one is the part that is most cited. So let's just read this together. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So let's just focus in on parts of it."}, {"video_title": "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's just read this together. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So let's just focus in on parts of it. So one big takeaway about the 14th Amendment, this is the federal government saying, hey, these are things that the state cannot do. So for example, when it says, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, this is a restatement of the Fifth Amendment that, hey, people can't just stick you in jail or take away your property without you going through some type of a process, a legal process. Well, in the Fifth Amendment, this was really talking about the federal government not being able to just take your property or your liberty away from you without the process of law."}, {"video_title": "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's just focus in on parts of it. So one big takeaway about the 14th Amendment, this is the federal government saying, hey, these are things that the state cannot do. So for example, when it says, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, this is a restatement of the Fifth Amendment that, hey, people can't just stick you in jail or take away your property without you going through some type of a process, a legal process. Well, in the Fifth Amendment, this was really talking about the federal government not being able to just take your property or your liberty away from you without the process of law. But here it's saying, nor shall any state. And this clause right over here, this is known as the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Then right after that it says, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, the equal protection of the laws."}, {"video_title": "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, in the Fifth Amendment, this was really talking about the federal government not being able to just take your property or your liberty away from you without the process of law. But here it's saying, nor shall any state. And this clause right over here, this is known as the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Then right after that it says, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, the equal protection of the laws. I'm gonna underline that. And this, you might guess, is called the Equal Protection Clause. Now, the context in which the 14th Amendment was ratified, it happens in 1868, shortly after the end of the Civil War."}, {"video_title": "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then right after that it says, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, the equal protection of the laws. I'm gonna underline that. And this, you might guess, is called the Equal Protection Clause. Now, the context in which the 14th Amendment was ratified, it happens in 1868, shortly after the end of the Civil War. You, of course, have the 13th Amendment that, among other things, abolishes slavery. But then you have these things in the South called Black Codes, which continued to repress the rights of African Americans. And that's why Congress felt the need for the 14th Amendment to be passed."}, {"video_title": "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, the context in which the 14th Amendment was ratified, it happens in 1868, shortly after the end of the Civil War. You, of course, have the 13th Amendment that, among other things, abolishes slavery. But then you have these things in the South called Black Codes, which continued to repress the rights of African Americans. And that's why Congress felt the need for the 14th Amendment to be passed. Now, one of the most notable cases in which the 14th Amendment was brought up happens in 1896, Plessy versus Ferguson. And we have a whole video about this. And this is a case in which it was argued that it was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment for African Americans to have to travel in a separate train car from white Americans."}, {"video_title": "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's why Congress felt the need for the 14th Amendment to be passed. Now, one of the most notable cases in which the 14th Amendment was brought up happens in 1896, Plessy versus Ferguson. And we have a whole video about this. And this is a case in which it was argued that it was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment for African Americans to have to travel in a separate train car from white Americans. And the Supreme Court infamously said that, hey, as long as it is equal, it is okay for it to be separate, and that would not violate the 14th Amendment. And so this idea of separate but equal comes about. Now, that was significantly challenged as we go into 1954, where you have Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas."}, {"video_title": "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is a case in which it was argued that it was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment for African Americans to have to travel in a separate train car from white Americans. And the Supreme Court infamously said that, hey, as long as it is equal, it is okay for it to be separate, and that would not violate the 14th Amendment. And so this idea of separate but equal comes about. Now, that was significantly challenged as we go into 1954, where you have Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Board of Education. And here, the argument was that, inherently, separate could not be equal. And once again, the 14th Amendment was invoked."}, {"video_title": "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, that was significantly challenged as we go into 1954, where you have Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Board of Education. And here, the argument was that, inherently, separate could not be equal. And once again, the 14th Amendment was invoked. And this time, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that, yes, separate can't be equal, and that the schools needed to be desegregated. So even though it wasn't an official overruling of Plessy versus Ferguson, it was a functional overruling of this doctrine of separate but equal. And as we go into the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, led by folks like Martin Luther King, there's a 14th Amendment that was cited often."}, {"video_title": "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And once again, the 14th Amendment was invoked. And this time, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that, yes, separate can't be equal, and that the schools needed to be desegregated. So even though it wasn't an official overruling of Plessy versus Ferguson, it was a functional overruling of this doctrine of separate but equal. And as we go into the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, led by folks like Martin Luther King, there's a 14th Amendment that was cited often. In another video, we're going to look at Martin Luther King's letter from a Birmingham jail, in which he articulates the ideas of the Civil Rights Movement. It's a quite moving letter. But once again, it's evoking these ideas of the 14th Amendment."}, {"video_title": "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And as we go into the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, led by folks like Martin Luther King, there's a 14th Amendment that was cited often. In another video, we're going to look at Martin Luther King's letter from a Birmingham jail, in which he articulates the ideas of the Civil Rights Movement. It's a quite moving letter. But once again, it's evoking these ideas of the 14th Amendment. And it goes on to movements as disparate as the Women's Rights Movement, led by organizations like the National Organization for Women, citing equal protection of the laws in situations of sexual discrimination in the workplace. You have pro-life groups citing the 14th Amendment, arguing that an unborn fetus's right to life is protected by the 14th Amendment. You have rulings around whether quotas in higher education are legal or not, once again, citing ideas of equal protection of the laws."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and the Fourth Amendment deals with unreasonable search and seizure. So here's the official text of the amendment. It says, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. To learn more about the Fourth Amendment, I talked to two law professors who specialize in criminal law, Professor Tracy Mears of Yale University, and Professor Orin Kerr of George Washington University. And he's a particular expert in criminal procedure and computer crime. Professor Kerr, can you tell us a little bit about what the Fourth Amendment is and why the framers were interested in protecting these rights in particular? The Fourth Amendment is a ban on unreasonable searches and seizures by the government."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more about the Fourth Amendment, I talked to two law professors who specialize in criminal law, Professor Tracy Mears of Yale University, and Professor Orin Kerr of George Washington University. And he's a particular expert in criminal procedure and computer crime. Professor Kerr, can you tell us a little bit about what the Fourth Amendment is and why the framers were interested in protecting these rights in particular? The Fourth Amendment is a ban on unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It's something the framers were interested in because they wanted to limit the government's power. At the time of the framing, the English king had engaged in some pretty bad things that the framers wanted to stop. And one of those was raiding people's homes with what was called a general warrant."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Fourth Amendment is a ban on unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It's something the framers were interested in because they wanted to limit the government's power. At the time of the framing, the English king had engaged in some pretty bad things that the framers wanted to stop. And one of those was raiding people's homes with what was called a general warrant. General warrant is basically a warrant that said the police could go anywhere and look for anything without any limit. I asked Professor Mears to explain a little bit more about general warrants. She's a professor at Yale Law School who specializes in criminal procedure and criminal law policy."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And one of those was raiding people's homes with what was called a general warrant. General warrant is basically a warrant that said the police could go anywhere and look for anything without any limit. I asked Professor Mears to explain a little bit more about general warrants. She's a professor at Yale Law School who specializes in criminal procedure and criminal law policy. They were a general warrant allowing these officials to search people's homes, places, papers, the kinds of things that the Fourth Amendment lists and ways that people thought was not okay. The Fourth Amendment was primarily concerned with a couple of things. One, a case involving seditious libel investigation."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "She's a professor at Yale Law School who specializes in criminal procedure and criminal law policy. They were a general warrant allowing these officials to search people's homes, places, papers, the kinds of things that the Fourth Amendment lists and ways that people thought was not okay. The Fourth Amendment was primarily concerned with a couple of things. One, a case involving seditious libel investigation. That's a case called Intick. And a warrant was issued authorizing Intick, that's the subject of the warrant, his arrest and the seizure of all of his books and papers so that he could be prosecuted for seditious libel. That case isn't as well known as the second case, which is called the Ritz of Assistance case."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One, a case involving seditious libel investigation. That's a case called Intick. And a warrant was issued authorizing Intick, that's the subject of the warrant, his arrest and the seizure of all of his books and papers so that he could be prosecuted for seditious libel. That case isn't as well known as the second case, which is called the Ritz of Assistance case. And basically, the Ritz of Assistance involved customs inspectors who were trying to crack down on smuggling that was affecting Boston's economy. So to aid in that task, inspectors used Ritz of Assistance that were issued by the king and authorized the inspectors both to draft assistance, hence the name Ritz of Assistance and to search any place where smuggled goods might be concealed. The framers wanted to put an end to that."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That case isn't as well known as the second case, which is called the Ritz of Assistance case. And basically, the Ritz of Assistance involved customs inspectors who were trying to crack down on smuggling that was affecting Boston's economy. So to aid in that task, inspectors used Ritz of Assistance that were issued by the king and authorized the inspectors both to draft assistance, hence the name Ritz of Assistance and to search any place where smuggled goods might be concealed. The framers wanted to put an end to that. And so they said no general warrants are allowed and searches and seizures have to be reasonable. That really means is the government can't just stop anyone, arrest anyone, break into someone's house. There are limits as to what the government can do."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The framers wanted to put an end to that. And so they said no general warrants are allowed and searches and seizures have to be reasonable. That really means is the government can't just stop anyone, arrest anyone, break into someone's house. There are limits as to what the government can do. But what are those limits? What determines probable cause for a search? And what renders a search and seizure unreasonable?"}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There are limits as to what the government can do. But what are those limits? What determines probable cause for a search? And what renders a search and seizure unreasonable? Yeah, what counts as unreasonable is a really big question. There are different answers, different courts have suggested but the basic idea is that first, if the government has a valid warrant, a search or seizure is reasonable. If a warrant, if a judge has signed off and said, yeah, the government has probable cause to search this place for particular evidence, then the government can do that."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what renders a search and seizure unreasonable? Yeah, what counts as unreasonable is a really big question. There are different answers, different courts have suggested but the basic idea is that first, if the government has a valid warrant, a search or seizure is reasonable. If a warrant, if a judge has signed off and said, yeah, the government has probable cause to search this place for particular evidence, then the government can do that. And then the Supreme Court has laid out a bunch of what they call exceptions to the warrant requirement, which are also reasonable searches. So for example, if a person consents to a search, that's reasonable. Or in the case of a car, a car can be searched without a warrant based on probable cause, that's called the automobile exception."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If a warrant, if a judge has signed off and said, yeah, the government has probable cause to search this place for particular evidence, then the government can do that. And then the Supreme Court has laid out a bunch of what they call exceptions to the warrant requirement, which are also reasonable searches. So for example, if a person consents to a search, that's reasonable. Or in the case of a car, a car can be searched without a warrant based on probable cause, that's called the automobile exception. There are rules that govern when the police can stop somebody temporarily, when the government needs an arrest, they need probable cause. There are basically all sorts of rules that the Supreme Court has laid out on a bunch of different cases that say what counts as an unreasonable search or seizure. The Supreme Court has said that probable cause means a fair probability that evidence will be found in a particular place or that a particular person committed a crime."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or in the case of a car, a car can be searched without a warrant based on probable cause, that's called the automobile exception. There are rules that govern when the police can stop somebody temporarily, when the government needs an arrest, they need probable cause. There are basically all sorts of rules that the Supreme Court has laid out on a bunch of different cases that say what counts as an unreasonable search or seizure. The Supreme Court has said that probable cause means a fair probability that evidence will be found in a particular place or that a particular person committed a crime. So fair probability is the language. Now that's not something the Supreme Court has said, you know, that's not 50%, that doesn't mean it's more probable than not. It just means like there's pretty good reason to think that there's evidence to be in a particular place or a particular person committed a crime."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Supreme Court has said that probable cause means a fair probability that evidence will be found in a particular place or that a particular person committed a crime. So fair probability is the language. Now that's not something the Supreme Court has said, you know, that's not 50%, that doesn't mean it's more probable than not. It just means like there's pretty good reason to think that there's evidence to be in a particular place or a particular person committed a crime. So it doesn't mean a hunch, it doesn't mean the officer just had the idea pop into his head, but it also doesn't mean that the officer's certain. There's just gotta be a pretty good reason but not certainty to think that that person committed the crime or there's evidence there. But when I asked Professor Mears the same question, she wasn't convinced it was so easy to tell what counts as probable cause."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It just means like there's pretty good reason to think that there's evidence to be in a particular place or a particular person committed a crime. So it doesn't mean a hunch, it doesn't mean the officer just had the idea pop into his head, but it also doesn't mean that the officer's certain. There's just gotta be a pretty good reason but not certainty to think that that person committed the crime or there's evidence there. But when I asked Professor Mears the same question, she wasn't convinced it was so easy to tell what counts as probable cause. So what counts as a true probable cause to issue a warrant upon? Ah. Sorry, we can just skip this instead."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But when I asked Professor Mears the same question, she wasn't convinced it was so easy to tell what counts as probable cause. So what counts as a true probable cause to issue a warrant upon? Ah. Sorry, we can just skip this instead. Let's take a second. I mean, I taught this today. You can't, these aren't questions that you can just simply answer."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Sorry, we can just skip this instead. Let's take a second. I mean, I taught this today. You can't, these aren't questions that you can just simply answer. No one can, actually. I mean, there is, I mean, literally I taught today the fact that there is no real law on what probable cause is. It's inherently a factual determination."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You can't, these aren't questions that you can just simply answer. No one can, actually. I mean, there is, I mean, literally I taught today the fact that there is no real law on what probable cause is. It's inherently a factual determination. So how does this work in practice? I asked Professor Kerr if it's the case that a police officer has to convince a judge that there's probable cause to issue a warrant. Yeah, so it can come up in two ways."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's inherently a factual determination. So how does this work in practice? I asked Professor Kerr if it's the case that a police officer has to convince a judge that there's probable cause to issue a warrant. Yeah, so it can come up in two ways. In some cases, the Supreme Court says that the police have to go to a judge first and get a warrant, and then they have to convince the judge that what they're about to do is based on probable cause. And in other cases come up when the government has searched first or arrested first, and then they come back with the evidence or come back with the person who was arrested, and then there's a hearing as to whether there was probable cause for the arrest that already occurred. So either way, the standards are the same."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, so it can come up in two ways. In some cases, the Supreme Court says that the police have to go to a judge first and get a warrant, and then they have to convince the judge that what they're about to do is based on probable cause. And in other cases come up when the government has searched first or arrested first, and then they come back with the evidence or come back with the person who was arrested, and then there's a hearing as to whether there was probable cause for the arrest that already occurred. So either way, the standards are the same. It's that fair probability idea. Ultimately, up to a judge whether the police were right or wrong in doing what they did. Interesting, so there is a little bit of prior legwork involved in some cases."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So either way, the standards are the same. It's that fair probability idea. Ultimately, up to a judge whether the police were right or wrong in doing what they did. Interesting, so there is a little bit of prior legwork involved in some cases. What happens in cases when it might be really important to get evidence, say if there's a bomb threat? So there are some rules that allow searches or seizures without a warrant under what they call exigent circumstances. That basically means there was an emergency."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Interesting, so there is a little bit of prior legwork involved in some cases. What happens in cases when it might be really important to get evidence, say if there's a bomb threat? So there are some rules that allow searches or seizures without a warrant under what they call exigent circumstances. That basically means there was an emergency. So the government had to act without a search warrant. And so if there's a ticking time bomb that they think is gonna go off in a package, and they've got good reason to think there is this ticking time bomb in the package, they don't have to say, hey, we're gonna go find a judge, because by the time they do that, the bomb might have gone off. They can search that package under this exigent circumstances idea."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That basically means there was an emergency. So the government had to act without a search warrant. And so if there's a ticking time bomb that they think is gonna go off in a package, and they've got good reason to think there is this ticking time bomb in the package, they don't have to say, hey, we're gonna go find a judge, because by the time they do that, the bomb might have gone off. They can search that package under this exigent circumstances idea. So that's an exception to the rules. Although beyond that, there's no difference between a serious case and a less serious case under the Fourth Amendment. They're kind of all serious cases."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They can search that package under this exigent circumstances idea. So that's an exception to the rules. Although beyond that, there's no difference between a serious case and a less serious case under the Fourth Amendment. They're kind of all serious cases. So the courts have to follow, and the police have to follow the same rules in less serious and more serious cases. Professor Mears gave me an example of what seemed like a less serious case, but it's still a really interesting example of what counts as an unreasonable search and seizure. I'll give you one more case that I'm sure the high school students would love, and my students love it."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They're kind of all serious cases. So the courts have to follow, and the police have to follow the same rules in less serious and more serious cases. Professor Mears gave me an example of what seemed like a less serious case, but it's still a really interesting example of what counts as an unreasonable search and seizure. I'll give you one more case that I'm sure the high school students would love, and my students love it. It's a case where a person was sitting in a noodle shop in front of a window eating a big bowl of noodles, clear soup with noodles, and a police officer walks by the person eating the noodles and notices something floating in the bowl of noodles. So he enters into the store where the person is eating the noodles, and the person has left temporarily the bowl of noodles to get a napkin or go to the bathroom or something. And the police officer approaches the bowl, picks up the person's spoon, and stirs the noodles to see if he can find anything, and some baggies of crack float to the top."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I'll give you one more case that I'm sure the high school students would love, and my students love it. It's a case where a person was sitting in a noodle shop in front of a window eating a big bowl of noodles, clear soup with noodles, and a police officer walks by the person eating the noodles and notices something floating in the bowl of noodles. So he enters into the store where the person is eating the noodles, and the person has left temporarily the bowl of noodles to get a napkin or go to the bathroom or something. And the police officer approaches the bowl, picks up the person's spoon, and stirs the noodles to see if he can find anything, and some baggies of crack float to the top. Did the person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their food? In their soup? In their soup."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the police officer approaches the bowl, picks up the person's spoon, and stirs the noodles to see if he can find anything, and some baggies of crack float to the top. Did the person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their food? In their soup? In their soup. How did they rule? They ruled that the stirring was a search. So if it is a search, and i.e."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In their soup. How did they rule? They ruled that the stirring was a search. So if it is a search, and i.e. that you have a subjective interest in privacy in your soup that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, then the police officer would have to get a warrant before stirring the soup. This raises the question, where do I have Fourth Amendment rights? Are some locations protected and not others?"}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if it is a search, and i.e. that you have a subjective interest in privacy in your soup that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, then the police officer would have to get a warrant before stirring the soup. This raises the question, where do I have Fourth Amendment rights? Are some locations protected and not others? The building block of the Fourth Amendment is really that you have Fourth Amendment rights in your home, in your pockets, in your packages, but you don't have Fourth Amendment rights outside. You don't have Fourth Amendment rights in what you're doing outside, or if the police wanna walk on what they call open fields, public streets, you don't have Fourth Amendment rights in that. So thinking about how the Fourth Amendment applies just in the physical world, if the police wanna break into your home, they need a search warrant."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Are some locations protected and not others? The building block of the Fourth Amendment is really that you have Fourth Amendment rights in your home, in your pockets, in your packages, but you don't have Fourth Amendment rights outside. You don't have Fourth Amendment rights in what you're doing outside, or if the police wanna walk on what they call open fields, public streets, you don't have Fourth Amendment rights in that. So thinking about how the Fourth Amendment applies just in the physical world, if the police wanna break into your home, they need a search warrant. If the police wanna watch you walk down the street, they don't need anything. It's not a search or a seizure, so they can do anything they want just watching you. If they wanna arrest you, they need probable cause to believe you've committed a crime."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So thinking about how the Fourth Amendment applies just in the physical world, if the police wanna break into your home, they need a search warrant. If the police wanna watch you walk down the street, they don't need anything. It's not a search or a seizure, so they can do anything they want just watching you. If they wanna arrest you, they need probable cause to believe you've committed a crime. So those are really the building blocks of the Fourth Amendment that go, you know, going back to 18th century technology. And then the big question becomes, all right, well, how do you update that to a modern world? It's also the case that the Fourth Amendment applies to seizures."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If they wanna arrest you, they need probable cause to believe you've committed a crime. So those are really the building blocks of the Fourth Amendment that go, you know, going back to 18th century technology. And then the big question becomes, all right, well, how do you update that to a modern world? It's also the case that the Fourth Amendment applies to seizures. You know, what police have to show before they arrest a person, or temporarily stop them, or, you know, briefly pat their body on the outside of their body for weapons. All of those questions are Fourth Amendment questions, as are questions involving how much force police actually use to effect the arrest once we've decided that an arrest is legitimate. So, you know, we haven't talked about any of those questions, but the Fourth Amendment governs all of that."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's also the case that the Fourth Amendment applies to seizures. You know, what police have to show before they arrest a person, or temporarily stop them, or, you know, briefly pat their body on the outside of their body for weapons. All of those questions are Fourth Amendment questions, as are questions involving how much force police actually use to effect the arrest once we've decided that an arrest is legitimate. So, you know, we haven't talked about any of those questions, but the Fourth Amendment governs all of that. And remember, the Fourth Amendment governs all of those topics in a context in which the framers' motivations for enacting the Fourth Amendment have absolutely nothing to do with most of those things I just mentioned. But the Fourth Amendment also has implications that go beyond warrants and seizures. Professor Mears thinks that one of the biggest Fourth Amendment issues today is discretion."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So, you know, we haven't talked about any of those questions, but the Fourth Amendment governs all of that. And remember, the Fourth Amendment governs all of those topics in a context in which the framers' motivations for enacting the Fourth Amendment have absolutely nothing to do with most of those things I just mentioned. But the Fourth Amendment also has implications that go beyond warrants and seizures. Professor Mears thinks that one of the biggest Fourth Amendment issues today is discretion. Many people have thought much more about how the Fourth Amendment protects privacy than how the Fourth Amendment addresses discretion. And by discretion in this case, you mean what they get to decide to do on their own, right? Exactly so."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Professor Mears thinks that one of the biggest Fourth Amendment issues today is discretion. Many people have thought much more about how the Fourth Amendment protects privacy than how the Fourth Amendment addresses discretion. And by discretion in this case, you mean what they get to decide to do on their own, right? Exactly so. And one way to see the difference between those two things is to think about a metal detector in an airport. So long as everyone is required to go through the metal detector, there is no law enforcement discretion involved. So this is kind of where the public safety aspect comes in."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Exactly so. And one way to see the difference between those two things is to think about a metal detector in an airport. So long as everyone is required to go through the metal detector, there is no law enforcement discretion involved. So this is kind of where the public safety aspect comes in. That if we're all subject to non-invasive procedures at the whim of police, it's a little different than if individuals are kind of plucked for that reason. Right, it's just pointing out that targeting, the targeting of people for invasions is a different problem than the invasion problem itself. And so if all we ever do is think about privacy invasion without thinking about the discretion problem, then we're missing something important."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is kind of where the public safety aspect comes in. That if we're all subject to non-invasive procedures at the whim of police, it's a little different than if individuals are kind of plucked for that reason. Right, it's just pointing out that targeting, the targeting of people for invasions is a different problem than the invasion problem itself. And so if all we ever do is think about privacy invasion without thinking about the discretion problem, then we're missing something important. For Professor Kerr, however, the most important issue at stake today regarding the Fourth Amendment is how it will apply to electronic media. Well, the big question I think is how the Fourth Amendment is gonna apply to searches and seizures of computers, of emails, the internet, new technologies that we all use every day. We wake up in the morning and hop online or go on Twitter, whatever you use online, lots and lots of communications online all around the world."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so if all we ever do is think about privacy invasion without thinking about the discretion problem, then we're missing something important. For Professor Kerr, however, the most important issue at stake today regarding the Fourth Amendment is how it will apply to electronic media. Well, the big question I think is how the Fourth Amendment is gonna apply to searches and seizures of computers, of emails, the internet, new technologies that we all use every day. We wake up in the morning and hop online or go on Twitter, whatever you use online, lots and lots of communications online all around the world. And how does the Fourth Amendment apply to that is something that the courts are beginning to answer, but they've only started to answer. Some really, really hard questions of kind of translating that physical world concept of the Fourth Amendment to the world of computers that we live today. So as we've learned, the Fourth Amendment ensures that government authorities can't raid homes, pockets, or papers without a warrant issued by a judge, and then only if there's a probable cause to believe there's reason for a search."}, {"video_title": "The Fourth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We wake up in the morning and hop online or go on Twitter, whatever you use online, lots and lots of communications online all around the world. And how does the Fourth Amendment apply to that is something that the courts are beginning to answer, but they've only started to answer. Some really, really hard questions of kind of translating that physical world concept of the Fourth Amendment to the world of computers that we live today. So as we've learned, the Fourth Amendment ensures that government authorities can't raid homes, pockets, or papers without a warrant issued by a judge, and then only if there's a probable cause to believe there's reason for a search. What's tricky is deciding what counts as probable cause. And whether it's discriminatory to select some people to search, but not others. And how do we translate the Fourth Amendment to a world where our papers are all digital?"}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Here's a statistic that might surprise you. 95% of elected officials who seek re-election in the United States get re-elected. Just look at this graph that shows the rate of re-election for members of the US House of Representatives. It hovers all the way up here. It stands to reason that if you have two candidates for every office, one from each party, it would be about 50% of the time the candidates would be re-elected, but it's so much more than that. In this video on congressional elections, I wanna talk about some of the structural aspects, that is, the way things are set up in congressional elections that leads to this really high number. What are the advantages of being an incumbent, that is, the person who already holds a political office?"}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It hovers all the way up here. It stands to reason that if you have two candidates for every office, one from each party, it would be about 50% of the time the candidates would be re-elected, but it's so much more than that. In this video on congressional elections, I wanna talk about some of the structural aspects, that is, the way things are set up in congressional elections that leads to this really high number. What are the advantages of being an incumbent, that is, the person who already holds a political office? So what kind of advantages does an incumbent have simply for already occupying an office? Well, say maybe there's a Senate race between candidate Green, call her Amy Green, and candidate Rose, maybe he's Ken Rose. Now, what sort of advantages might Amy Green have just because she already holds this Senate seat?"}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What are the advantages of being an incumbent, that is, the person who already holds a political office? So what kind of advantages does an incumbent have simply for already occupying an office? Well, say maybe there's a Senate race between candidate Green, call her Amy Green, and candidate Rose, maybe he's Ken Rose. Now, what sort of advantages might Amy Green have just because she already holds this Senate seat? Well, one of her advantages is that she has a staff. She has people whose job it is to answer the phone calls of constituents, make them feel heard. They can do all sorts of things to help her."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, what sort of advantages might Amy Green have just because she already holds this Senate seat? Well, one of her advantages is that she has a staff. She has people whose job it is to answer the phone calls of constituents, make them feel heard. They can do all sorts of things to help her. She also has the advantage of mail. Members of Congress can send out mail for free, whereas candidate Rose over here has to pay for staff and pay for mail. Already, that's a lot of money."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They can do all sorts of things to help her. She also has the advantage of mail. Members of Congress can send out mail for free, whereas candidate Rose over here has to pay for staff and pay for mail. Already, that's a lot of money. The other thing that candidate Green has going for her is name recognition. She's already been a successful candidate, which shows that she knows how to win an election, and there's a lot of advantage to having name recognition. It's its own kind of advertising."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Already, that's a lot of money. The other thing that candidate Green has going for her is name recognition. She's already been a successful candidate, which shows that she knows how to win an election, and there's a lot of advantage to having name recognition. It's its own kind of advertising. Are you going to vote for someone you've never heard of before or someone who frequently appears in the media, who could be going to local or state events, school openings? You get a lot of face time simply from occupying a seat, and that's free advertising as well. The last aspect is money."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's its own kind of advertising. Are you going to vote for someone you've never heard of before or someone who frequently appears in the media, who could be going to local or state events, school openings? You get a lot of face time simply from occupying a seat, and that's free advertising as well. The last aspect is money. Because of this incumbency advantage, and this is a little bit of a repeating cycle, interest groups, lobbyists, and others are far more likely to give money to the candidate who is already in a position because they know that candidate is likely to win, and therefore, their money is going to get them access to that candidate who will hear out their concerns and perhaps look upon them favorably. So compared to all of this, candidate Rose has a really uphill battle. He's got to pay for a lot of things that the incumbent doesn't have to."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The last aspect is money. Because of this incumbency advantage, and this is a little bit of a repeating cycle, interest groups, lobbyists, and others are far more likely to give money to the candidate who is already in a position because they know that candidate is likely to win, and therefore, their money is going to get them access to that candidate who will hear out their concerns and perhaps look upon them favorably. So compared to all of this, candidate Rose has a really uphill battle. He's got to pay for a lot of things that the incumbent doesn't have to. He doesn't have the name recognition or the automatic media attention, and he's viewed less favorably by the people who might give money. He's a bit of an unknown quantity. Another advantage that incumbents have is that they get to draw voting districts."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's got to pay for a lot of things that the incumbent doesn't have to. He doesn't have the name recognition or the automatic media attention, and he's viewed less favorably by the people who might give money. He's a bit of an unknown quantity. Another advantage that incumbents have is that they get to draw voting districts. At least every 10 years, in response to the US Census and changes in populations, the districts and states must be redrawn. Politicians do that redrawing, and they tend to use this opportunity to create safe districts for themselves, safe being districts where the voters, who are arranged geographically, will be likely to vote them back into power. Those in power will also generally use this opportunity to attempt to harm their opponents in a process known as gerrymandering."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Another advantage that incumbents have is that they get to draw voting districts. At least every 10 years, in response to the US Census and changes in populations, the districts and states must be redrawn. Politicians do that redrawing, and they tend to use this opportunity to create safe districts for themselves, safe being districts where the voters, who are arranged geographically, will be likely to vote them back into power. Those in power will also generally use this opportunity to attempt to harm their opponents in a process known as gerrymandering. There are two other major factors that contribute to whether a Congress member is reelected. One of them is, in each state, the form that their primary takes. Some states, like Iowa, have caucuses where party members gather to vote on who their nominee should be."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Those in power will also generally use this opportunity to attempt to harm their opponents in a process known as gerrymandering. There are two other major factors that contribute to whether a Congress member is reelected. One of them is, in each state, the form that their primary takes. Some states, like Iowa, have caucuses where party members gather to vote on who their nominee should be. These are very tightly controlled by the party. There are closed primaries where only the registered members of a party may vote on their party's nominees for election, and then there are open primaries where any registered voter can vote for a party nominee, even if they belong to the opposing party. So the form a state's primary takes has a strong effect on how tight the party control is over that process."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Some states, like Iowa, have caucuses where party members gather to vote on who their nominee should be. These are very tightly controlled by the party. There are closed primaries where only the registered members of a party may vote on their party's nominees for election, and then there are open primaries where any registered voter can vote for a party nominee, even if they belong to the opposing party. So the form a state's primary takes has a strong effect on how tight the party control is over that process. The last factor affecting congressional elections is whether or not they coincide with a presidential election. There's much higher voter turnout for presidential elections since there's a great deal of interest in them and money spent on them, and that means that you tend to get a broader sample of the population. More people are likely to vote, so you'll have a better idea of how the American voting public is feeling more generally."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the form a state's primary takes has a strong effect on how tight the party control is over that process. The last factor affecting congressional elections is whether or not they coincide with a presidential election. There's much higher voter turnout for presidential elections since there's a great deal of interest in them and money spent on them, and that means that you tend to get a broader sample of the population. More people are likely to vote, so you'll have a better idea of how the American voting public is feeling more generally. But in midterm elections, which are those elections that don't fall at the same time as a presidential election, voter turnout is lower, and that means that it's gonna be the really engaged voters who are often strongly aligned with a party that will come out. Midterm elections also tend to punish the party in power. So when the president is highly regarded and doing well, his or her party tends to gain seats, but if the president is doing poorly or has a low public opinion rating, then congressional seats will often go to the opposite party."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "More people are likely to vote, so you'll have a better idea of how the American voting public is feeling more generally. But in midterm elections, which are those elections that don't fall at the same time as a presidential election, voter turnout is lower, and that means that it's gonna be the really engaged voters who are often strongly aligned with a party that will come out. Midterm elections also tend to punish the party in power. So when the president is highly regarded and doing well, his or her party tends to gain seats, but if the president is doing poorly or has a low public opinion rating, then congressional seats will often go to the opposite party. Can see here this chart of net gain and loss of the president's party, and in most cases, the president will gain a few followers in the first midterm election. See here, George W. Bush, 2002. His party gained both House and Senate seats, but often in the sixth year of a two-term presidency, voters harshly punish the president's party."}, {"video_title": "Congressional elections   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So when the president is highly regarded and doing well, his or her party tends to gain seats, but if the president is doing poorly or has a low public opinion rating, then congressional seats will often go to the opposite party. Can see here this chart of net gain and loss of the president's party, and in most cases, the president will gain a few followers in the first midterm election. See here, George W. Bush, 2002. His party gained both House and Senate seats, but often in the sixth year of a two-term presidency, voters harshly punish the president's party. You can see that in George W. Bush's sixth year, the Republicans lost 30 House seats and six Senate seats, and a similar effect happened with Barack Obama in 2014. The Democrats lost 13 House seats and nine Senate seats. So there's a strong correlation with the president's party and the fates of members of Congress who belong to that party."}, {"video_title": "Why is the Speaker second in succession   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When William Henry Harrison died and John Tyler came in as his vice president, as president, there was a big debate about whether he was actually really the president. So even though the line of succession is written down, there's a lot of debate about whether, what enforces it and what doesn't it. The speaker of the house though has prominence in that line of succession because the speaker of the house is closest to the people and the formation of the federal government, article one defines the powers of Congress because the framers wanted Congress really to be the powerful branch, close to the people. They were worried about a monarchy. So they didn't want the president to have excessive power. And the speaker of the house represents all of the, you know, is elected by all of the members. And so has a closer relationship to the people."}, {"video_title": "Why is the Speaker second in succession   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They were worried about a monarchy. So they didn't want the president to have excessive power. And the speaker of the house represents all of the, you know, is elected by all of the members. And so has a closer relationship to the people. And that's what gives them power in the question of succession. What's interesting though, is that there's only been one speaker of the house who's then gone on to be president, James K Polk. So while they are high up in the order of succession behind the vice president, that doesn't necessarily make the job a stepping stone to actual power of the presidency through the electoral process."}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have the executive branch that runs the actual government, and then you have the judicial branch that decides on the constitutionality of laws and actions by the government, as well as interprets existing laws. And connected to this idea of separation of powers, where each of these branches are somewhat independent, but not completely independent, is that they all have checks and balances on each other. We've talked about in multiple videos, the executive can veto a law by the legislative, the legislative can override that veto, the legislative decides on the budget that the executive has to run the government. The judicial branch decides on constitutionality. The executive branch decides who is even going to become a justice in the Supreme Court. And so when you have this separation of powers and you have these checks and balances, it provides multiple opportunities to influence policy and the actions of government. And there's two ways that you could view influence."}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The judicial branch decides on constitutionality. The executive branch decides who is even going to become a justice in the Supreme Court. And so when you have this separation of powers and you have these checks and balances, it provides multiple opportunities to influence policy and the actions of government. And there's two ways that you could view influence. You could view it as a positive thing. After all, it's government by the people. The people are sovereign, so they should be able to influence what the government does."}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there's two ways that you could view influence. You could view it as a positive thing. After all, it's government by the people. The people are sovereign, so they should be able to influence what the government does. But sometimes a cynical view of influence is, well, who gets to influence? And is it really by the people? Or are there other interests, maybe driven by things like money, that have undue influence?"}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The people are sovereign, so they should be able to influence what the government does. But sometimes a cynical view of influence is, well, who gets to influence? And is it really by the people? Or are there other interests, maybe driven by things like money, that have undue influence? But just to get a sense of how folks can influence or where there are points of influence is, well, first, what laws, what laws get passed? Or what gets funded? That's decided in the budget."}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or are there other interests, maybe driven by things like money, that have undue influence? But just to get a sense of how folks can influence or where there are points of influence is, well, first, what laws, what laws get passed? Or what gets funded? That's decided in the budget. Now, as an individual, as a citizen, you can write letters to your congressperson, you can petition them, you can call them up, you can show up at town halls that they hold in order to speak your voice. But there's also interest groups. Now, interest groups could be corporate interest groups, they could be unions, they could be professions, and these interest groups will oftentimes also lobby Congress in order to influence what gets funded or the laws that get passed or don't get passed."}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's decided in the budget. Now, as an individual, as a citizen, you can write letters to your congressperson, you can petition them, you can call them up, you can show up at town halls that they hold in order to speak your voice. But there's also interest groups. Now, interest groups could be corporate interest groups, they could be unions, they could be professions, and these interest groups will oftentimes also lobby Congress in order to influence what gets funded or the laws that get passed or don't get passed. And the word lobbying really is just this idea of trying to influence the government. Now, a major way, a major point of influence in the United States is when there are elections. Who actually gets elected?"}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, interest groups could be corporate interest groups, they could be unions, they could be professions, and these interest groups will oftentimes also lobby Congress in order to influence what gets funded or the laws that get passed or don't get passed. And the word lobbying really is just this idea of trying to influence the government. Now, a major way, a major point of influence in the United States is when there are elections. Who actually gets elected? And so you can imagine there could be direct support, endorsement for different candidates. Money, especially with mass media becoming more and more important, becomes a bigger and bigger part of elections. So you can donate at an individual level, or you often see now, and this is a very controversial area where there's heated debates on to what degree large donations can be made, to what degree corporations can influence elections."}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Who actually gets elected? And so you can imagine there could be direct support, endorsement for different candidates. Money, especially with mass media becoming more and more important, becomes a bigger and bigger part of elections. So you can donate at an individual level, or you often see now, and this is a very controversial area where there's heated debates on to what degree large donations can be made, to what degree corporations can influence elections. But who gets elected is perhaps the biggest lever on our government. For example, even if your main concern is the judicial, and the judicial is the one branch that is most immune from elections, Supreme Court justices are not elected, they are appointed by the president with approval from the Senate. But if you did care who is going to be in the judiciary, well, there there would be a strong motivation to influence who is going to be president."}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you can donate at an individual level, or you often see now, and this is a very controversial area where there's heated debates on to what degree large donations can be made, to what degree corporations can influence elections. But who gets elected is perhaps the biggest lever on our government. For example, even if your main concern is the judicial, and the judicial is the one branch that is most immune from elections, Supreme Court justices are not elected, they are appointed by the president with approval from the Senate. But if you did care who is going to be in the judiciary, well, there there would be a strong motivation to influence who is going to be president. And then even once they are president, there might be some influence, some lobbying on who they appoint to the judiciary. If a law gets passed by Congress, there's still another outlet. You could petition the executive to veto that law."}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But if you did care who is going to be in the judiciary, well, there there would be a strong motivation to influence who is going to be president. And then even once they are president, there might be some influence, some lobbying on who they appoint to the judiciary. If a law gets passed by Congress, there's still another outlet. You could petition the executive to veto that law. So I'll leave you there. The main takeaway from this is that because of these checks and balances and separation of powers, there's multiple levers of influence in the government. And I've just touched on a few of them."}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You could petition the executive to veto that law. So I'll leave you there. The main takeaway from this is that because of these checks and balances and separation of powers, there's multiple levers of influence in the government. And I've just touched on a few of them. An interesting thing to always think about is how much of our current levers of influence, especially as they exist today in our modern government, how much of this was intended by the founders of our country, the authors of the Constitution, and how much is based on things that we could have never predicted. They could have never predicted the size of the country. They could have never predicted the influence of mass media."}, {"video_title": "Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I've just touched on a few of them. An interesting thing to always think about is how much of our current levers of influence, especially as they exist today in our modern government, how much of this was intended by the founders of our country, the authors of the Constitution, and how much is based on things that we could have never predicted. They could have never predicted the size of the country. They could have never predicted the influence of mass media. They could have never perhaps predicted the influence of money. Who knows? I will leave you with that question."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We're gonna talk about the preamble to the US Constitution. That sounds very important. It is very important. The entire theory of popular sovereignty is contained within these beautiful words, so we've got a lot to talk about. And before we even get into it, what do you mean by the theory of popular sovereignty? So the preamble begins with the famous words, we the people of the United States, and those signal that in the United States, power belongs to we the people. It doesn't belong to our representatives in Congress."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The entire theory of popular sovereignty is contained within these beautiful words, so we've got a lot to talk about. And before we even get into it, what do you mean by the theory of popular sovereignty? So the preamble begins with the famous words, we the people of the United States, and those signal that in the United States, power belongs to we the people. It doesn't belong to our representatives in Congress. It doesn't even belong to the state governments. And that was a huge shift, because an original draft of the preamble read, we the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and so forth. But James Wilson, who was the main drafter of the preamble, changed those words, and at some point, the preamble was changed to the famous words we know now, we the people of the United States."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It doesn't belong to our representatives in Congress. It doesn't even belong to the state governments. And that was a huge shift, because an original draft of the preamble read, we the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and so forth. But James Wilson, who was the main drafter of the preamble, changed those words, and at some point, the preamble was changed to the famous words we know now, we the people of the United States. That meant that when some southern states tried to secede from the Union before the Civil War, arguing that they were sovereign as state governments, President Lincoln resisted their constitutional ability to secede, saying that since we the people of the United States had created the Constitution, a majority of we the people of the United States would have to agree before any state could leave it. So that's why it was a huge shift in a conception of power that James Wilson embodied in these words. Before the preamble, people believed that legislatures were sovereign."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But James Wilson, who was the main drafter of the preamble, changed those words, and at some point, the preamble was changed to the famous words we know now, we the people of the United States. That meant that when some southern states tried to secede from the Union before the Civil War, arguing that they were sovereign as state governments, President Lincoln resisted their constitutional ability to secede, saying that since we the people of the United States had created the Constitution, a majority of we the people of the United States would have to agree before any state could leave it. So that's why it was a huge shift in a conception of power that James Wilson embodied in these words. Before the preamble, people believed that legislatures were sovereign. In Britain, the king in Parliament was sovereign. But in America, thanks to Wilson and his brilliant colleagues, we the people of the United States as a whole became sovereign, and that came to chart the entire course of constitutional history. But then we have all of these purposes for which the Constitution was formed, and to form a more perfect union, establish justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and then we're saying that we, that's the reason that we established the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Before the preamble, people believed that legislatures were sovereign. In Britain, the king in Parliament was sovereign. But in America, thanks to Wilson and his brilliant colleagues, we the people of the United States as a whole became sovereign, and that came to chart the entire course of constitutional history. But then we have all of these purposes for which the Constitution was formed, and to form a more perfect union, establish justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and then we're saying that we, that's the reason that we established the Constitution. There's lots to unpack there, but maybe we should focus on those final words, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. The framers believed that our rights come not from government, but from God or nature, that we're born with them. And when we move from the state of nature into civil society to form a government, we surrender temporary control over certain of those rights in order to secure the safety and security of the rights we've retained."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But then we have all of these purposes for which the Constitution was formed, and to form a more perfect union, establish justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and then we're saying that we, that's the reason that we established the Constitution. There's lots to unpack there, but maybe we should focus on those final words, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. The framers believed that our rights come not from government, but from God or nature, that we're born with them. And when we move from the state of nature into civil society to form a government, we surrender temporary control over certain of those rights in order to secure the safety and security of the rights we've retained. So that means that certain rights are unalienable, to use Jefferson's language in the Declaration. We can't alienate them to government when we form a government, and the purpose of alienating temporary control over certain rights, like allowing the government to punish murder rather than having private violence, is to secure the blessings of liberty of the retained natural rights, the first of which, the framers believed, was complete freedom of conscience, the right to believe or not to believe according to the dictates of our conscience. So we really see that that idea of securing the blessings of liberty is implicit in the idea that our rights come from God and not government, that government only has temporary control of them, and reinforces, once again, that we should never confuse the actions of the government, laws that Congress or the state governments pass, with the will of the people."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And when we move from the state of nature into civil society to form a government, we surrender temporary control over certain of those rights in order to secure the safety and security of the rights we've retained. So that means that certain rights are unalienable, to use Jefferson's language in the Declaration. We can't alienate them to government when we form a government, and the purpose of alienating temporary control over certain rights, like allowing the government to punish murder rather than having private violence, is to secure the blessings of liberty of the retained natural rights, the first of which, the framers believed, was complete freedom of conscience, the right to believe or not to believe according to the dictates of our conscience. So we really see that that idea of securing the blessings of liberty is implicit in the idea that our rights come from God and not government, that government only has temporary control of them, and reinforces, once again, that we should never confuse the actions of the government, laws that Congress or the state governments pass, with the will of the people. We the people are sovereign, the government is our servants, we are the principles, and when there's a clash between the will of the principles represented by the Constitution and the will of the servants represented by the legislatures, you prefer the principle to the agent. That was what Hamilton said in Federalist 78 in justifying the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws, because the Constitution ratified in the name of we the people represents our views more profoundly than those of ordinary laws, that's why judges have to prefer the Constitution to ordinary laws. So once again, we're seeing packed into this preamble so much natural law theory and theory of popular sovereignty."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So we really see that that idea of securing the blessings of liberty is implicit in the idea that our rights come from God and not government, that government only has temporary control of them, and reinforces, once again, that we should never confuse the actions of the government, laws that Congress or the state governments pass, with the will of the people. We the people are sovereign, the government is our servants, we are the principles, and when there's a clash between the will of the principles represented by the Constitution and the will of the servants represented by the legislatures, you prefer the principle to the agent. That was what Hamilton said in Federalist 78 in justifying the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws, because the Constitution ratified in the name of we the people represents our views more profoundly than those of ordinary laws, that's why judges have to prefer the Constitution to ordinary laws. So once again, we're seeing packed into this preamble so much natural law theory and theory of popular sovereignty. There's one other really important notion contained in those words, securing the blessings of liberty in the name of we the people, and that's that the Constitution itself didn't get to speak for we the people when it was proposed. It wasn't until it was ratified by special conventions that had been elected for that purpose that it earned the right to speak in the name of we the people as a whole. James Wilson was very keen on the idea that it was the ratifying conventions, not the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, that gave the document its status as supreme law, and that idea that only laws that go through a special procedure specified in the Constitution in Article V, which is the amendment procedure, or by special constitutional conventions, get to speak in the name of we the people is absolutely core to the whole theory of American constitutionalism."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So once again, we're seeing packed into this preamble so much natural law theory and theory of popular sovereignty. There's one other really important notion contained in those words, securing the blessings of liberty in the name of we the people, and that's that the Constitution itself didn't get to speak for we the people when it was proposed. It wasn't until it was ratified by special conventions that had been elected for that purpose that it earned the right to speak in the name of we the people as a whole. James Wilson was very keen on the idea that it was the ratifying conventions, not the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, that gave the document its status as supreme law, and that idea that only laws that go through a special procedure specified in the Constitution in Article V, which is the amendment procedure, or by special constitutional conventions, get to speak in the name of we the people is absolutely core to the whole theory of American constitutionalism. Why were the founding fathers so focused on this notion of popular sovereignty, of elected officials being servant to the people, and making it so strongly embedded even here in the preamble? They just fought a revolution based on the idea that the tyrannical King George had infringed the natural rights of the people, had refused to grant basic powers of representation, and had broken the social contract, and therefore had lost the right to govern people because he was governing without consent. One of the natural rights that people believed were unalienable and retained by the people was the right to alter and abolish government whenever it threatens the retained natural rights of the people."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "James Wilson was very keen on the idea that it was the ratifying conventions, not the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, that gave the document its status as supreme law, and that idea that only laws that go through a special procedure specified in the Constitution in Article V, which is the amendment procedure, or by special constitutional conventions, get to speak in the name of we the people is absolutely core to the whole theory of American constitutionalism. Why were the founding fathers so focused on this notion of popular sovereignty, of elected officials being servant to the people, and making it so strongly embedded even here in the preamble? They just fought a revolution based on the idea that the tyrannical King George had infringed the natural rights of the people, had refused to grant basic powers of representation, and had broken the social contract, and therefore had lost the right to govern people because he was governing without consent. One of the natural rights that people believed were unalienable and retained by the people was the right to alter and abolish government whenever it threatens the retained natural rights of the people. That's in the Declaration of Independence, and in the Constitution it can be found in Article V. So that right of revolution was part and parcel of the idea that our basic natural rights are retained. And you have to remember how revolutionary it was to be talking of popular sovereignty in 1787. There were almost no democratic self-governments on Earth then."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One of the natural rights that people believed were unalienable and retained by the people was the right to alter and abolish government whenever it threatens the retained natural rights of the people. That's in the Declaration of Independence, and in the Constitution it can be found in Article V. So that right of revolution was part and parcel of the idea that our basic natural rights are retained. And you have to remember how revolutionary it was to be talking of popular sovereignty in 1787. There were almost no democratic self-governments on Earth then. There'd been small-scale democracies in Greece and Rome. In Athens, Solon, or in Sparta, Lysergius had been lawgivers. But no people had ever, as the scholar Aquila Mar says, voted on a written constitution before, deliberated it, and had it ratified in their name."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There were almost no democratic self-governments on Earth then. There'd been small-scale democracies in Greece and Rome. In Athens, Solon, or in Sparta, Lysergius had been lawgivers. But no people had ever, as the scholar Aquila Mar says, voted on a written constitution before, deliberated it, and had it ratified in their name. So that's what was so radical about it. Even the handful of minor, of sort of partial democracies at the time, like the limited suffrage in the British Parliament, or the Swiss cantons, hadn't had a written constitution that was ratified by popular deliberation. So that's what made it radical, and that was Wilson's distinct contribution to America's entire theory of democratic self-governments."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But no people had ever, as the scholar Aquila Mar says, voted on a written constitution before, deliberated it, and had it ratified in their name. So that's what was so radical about it. Even the handful of minor, of sort of partial democracies at the time, like the limited suffrage in the British Parliament, or the Swiss cantons, hadn't had a written constitution that was ratified by popular deliberation. So that's what made it radical, and that was Wilson's distinct contribution to America's entire theory of democratic self-governments. And that's why, if you had to talk about the essence of constitutionalism today, it's not populism, it's not a quick, direct vote, it's not Brexit, it's not a referendum. It's long periods of deliberation so that the text earns the right to speak in the name of we the people, and it was the very reason for which the revolutionaries fought the American Revolution. Fascinating."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that's what made it radical, and that was Wilson's distinct contribution to America's entire theory of democratic self-governments. And that's why, if you had to talk about the essence of constitutionalism today, it's not populism, it's not a quick, direct vote, it's not Brexit, it's not a referendum. It's long periods of deliberation so that the text earns the right to speak in the name of we the people, and it was the very reason for which the revolutionaries fought the American Revolution. Fascinating. And let's continue. So we said we have we the people of the United States, it establishes the popular sovereignty. And then it says in order to, and it lists a bunch of reasons why we are, what we're trying to do, and we already did secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Fascinating. And let's continue. So we said we have we the people of the United States, it establishes the popular sovereignty. And then it says in order to, and it lists a bunch of reasons why we are, what we're trying to do, and we already did secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. What are the other things we wanna talk about? Let's go back in order, and the next, the first purpose is in order to form a more perfect union. Well, that was the central goal of the Constitutional Convention."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then it says in order to, and it lists a bunch of reasons why we are, what we're trying to do, and we already did secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. What are the other things we wanna talk about? Let's go back in order, and the next, the first purpose is in order to form a more perfect union. Well, that was the central goal of the Constitutional Convention. The previous union, represented by the Articles of Confederation, had been imperfect. That was sovereign states that were unable to achieve common purposes. They couldn't raise money to support forces in war."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, that was the central goal of the Constitutional Convention. The previous union, represented by the Articles of Confederation, had been imperfect. That was sovereign states that were unable to achieve common purposes. They couldn't raise money to support forces in war. They couldn't put down rebellions by debtors in Massachusetts, known as Shays' Rebellion. They needed a unanimous vote to achieve anything, and essentially, the government didn't work. So the framers came to Philadelphia in order to form a more perfect union by establishing a constitution strong enough to achieve common purposes, but restrained enough to protect, retain natural rights, and that's what a perfect union is."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They couldn't raise money to support forces in war. They couldn't put down rebellions by debtors in Massachusetts, known as Shays' Rebellion. They needed a unanimous vote to achieve anything, and essentially, the government didn't work. So the framers came to Philadelphia in order to form a more perfect union by establishing a constitution strong enough to achieve common purposes, but restrained enough to protect, retain natural rights, and that's what a perfect union is. It's not a consolidated government because the states retained powers under the 10th Amendment. All powers not vested in the United States as a whole are retained by the states or the people, and ultimately, it's we the people who retain the ultimate power because we're the ones who are sovereign, but we can parcel that power out either to state governments or to the federal government in order to ensure the protections of liberty. So that's what a more perfect union is, and that's why it was so appropriate that Lincoln, in defending the union during the Civil War, resisted the authority of the state governments to secede on the grounds that we the people of the United States needed to consent before the union could become less perfect."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the framers came to Philadelphia in order to form a more perfect union by establishing a constitution strong enough to achieve common purposes, but restrained enough to protect, retain natural rights, and that's what a perfect union is. It's not a consolidated government because the states retained powers under the 10th Amendment. All powers not vested in the United States as a whole are retained by the states or the people, and ultimately, it's we the people who retain the ultimate power because we're the ones who are sovereign, but we can parcel that power out either to state governments or to the federal government in order to ensure the protections of liberty. So that's what a more perfect union is, and that's why it was so appropriate that Lincoln, in defending the union during the Civil War, resisted the authority of the state governments to secede on the grounds that we the people of the United States needed to consent before the union could become less perfect. I just wanna double-click on that a little bit because the words more and perfect normally go together. You're either perfect or you're not, and so part of the narrative that I think I'm hearing is that we had the Articles of Confederation, which were imperfect, and we wanna get closer to being perfect, and so that's one of the reasons here. Many times when I look to form a more perfect union, it also, at least to me, kind of invokes this notion of continuously trying to get better even from the starting point."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that's what a more perfect union is, and that's why it was so appropriate that Lincoln, in defending the union during the Civil War, resisted the authority of the state governments to secede on the grounds that we the people of the United States needed to consent before the union could become less perfect. I just wanna double-click on that a little bit because the words more and perfect normally go together. You're either perfect or you're not, and so part of the narrative that I think I'm hearing is that we had the Articles of Confederation, which were imperfect, and we wanna get closer to being perfect, and so that's one of the reasons here. Many times when I look to form a more perfect union, it also, at least to me, kind of invokes this notion of continuously trying to get better even from the starting point. You're right to parse it closely. We're trying continuously to get better, but perfection doesn't mean amalgamation. In other words, the most perfect union wouldn't be a total union in which all power is united in the federal government, for example, and not parceled out between the federal government and the states and also not separated out so the various branches can check each other."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Many times when I look to form a more perfect union, it also, at least to me, kind of invokes this notion of continuously trying to get better even from the starting point. You're right to parse it closely. We're trying continuously to get better, but perfection doesn't mean amalgamation. In other words, the most perfect union wouldn't be a total union in which all power is united in the federal government, for example, and not parceled out between the federal government and the states and also not separated out so the various branches can check each other. We want a union perfect enough to achieve common purposes, but not so strong as to threaten liberty, and it was that delicate balance that was crucial to Madison's vision, and that led to most of the tensions in the Constitutional Convention. Yep, and then established justice. Well, my goodness, there's a lot packed into that, and you might think that that mandate to establish justice gives judges the power to do justice regardless of, you know, let the heavens fall, to use the expression, but that's not what the Supreme Court has held."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In other words, the most perfect union wouldn't be a total union in which all power is united in the federal government, for example, and not parceled out between the federal government and the states and also not separated out so the various branches can check each other. We want a union perfect enough to achieve common purposes, but not so strong as to threaten liberty, and it was that delicate balance that was crucial to Madison's vision, and that led to most of the tensions in the Constitutional Convention. Yep, and then established justice. Well, my goodness, there's a lot packed into that, and you might think that that mandate to establish justice gives judges the power to do justice regardless of, you know, let the heavens fall, to use the expression, but that's not what the Supreme Court has held. In a really interesting case, the Supreme Court, it was called Jacobson versus Massachusetts, it came down in 1905. The Supreme Court rejected the claim that the preamble to the Constitution conferred independent powers that could be enforced by judges. In other words, it wasn't a general mandate that allowed judges to do justice regardless."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, my goodness, there's a lot packed into that, and you might think that that mandate to establish justice gives judges the power to do justice regardless of, you know, let the heavens fall, to use the expression, but that's not what the Supreme Court has held. In a really interesting case, the Supreme Court, it was called Jacobson versus Massachusetts, it came down in 1905. The Supreme Court rejected the claim that the preamble to the Constitution conferred independent powers that could be enforced by judges. In other words, it wasn't a general mandate that allowed judges to do justice regardless. Instead, Justice Harlan said in the Jacobson case, although the preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States or any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, or, and this is the final bit, and such as may be implied from those so granted. So established justice is a broad declaration of purposes."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In other words, it wasn't a general mandate that allowed judges to do justice regardless. Instead, Justice Harlan said in the Jacobson case, although the preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States or any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, or, and this is the final bit, and such as may be implied from those so granted. So established justice is a broad declaration of purposes. Many parts of the Constitution help the government to establish justice, including the Bill of Rights, which requires that people can't be deprived of liberty without due process of law. If they're gonna have a criminal trial, they have all sorts of rights to confront witnesses, to be tried by jury and so forth. But it's those specific articulation of the rights that allow us to establish justice that are the ones that judges can enforce."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So established justice is a broad declaration of purposes. Many parts of the Constitution help the government to establish justice, including the Bill of Rights, which requires that people can't be deprived of liberty without due process of law. If they're gonna have a criminal trial, they have all sorts of rights to confront witnesses, to be tried by jury and so forth. But it's those specific articulation of the rights that allow us to establish justice that are the ones that judges can enforce. The goal, the broad goal, is the one set out in the preamble. And then we have ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. Yeah, so domestic tranquility is of central concern to the framers."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it's those specific articulation of the rights that allow us to establish justice that are the ones that judges can enforce. The goal, the broad goal, is the one set out in the preamble. And then we have ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. Yeah, so domestic tranquility is of central concern to the framers. They're concerned about armed mobs like those I mentioned in Massachusetts and Shays' Rebellion, where debtors and farmers in Western Massachusetts are rebelling against their creditors. So they want to allow the government enough power to put down these insurrections, but they don't want a government so strong that it'll create standing armies that can be permanent threats to liberty of the kind that King George's army was. So that's why the Second Amendment to the Constitution wants to provide for well-regulated militias that can help ensure domestic tranquility, but doesn't want to empower a permanent standing army because it believes that ultimately the people do have to retain the ability to take up arms to defend their own liberty if the government is threatening it as part of their unalienable right to alter and abolish government."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, so domestic tranquility is of central concern to the framers. They're concerned about armed mobs like those I mentioned in Massachusetts and Shays' Rebellion, where debtors and farmers in Western Massachusetts are rebelling against their creditors. So they want to allow the government enough power to put down these insurrections, but they don't want a government so strong that it'll create standing armies that can be permanent threats to liberty of the kind that King George's army was. So that's why the Second Amendment to the Constitution wants to provide for well-regulated militias that can help ensure domestic tranquility, but doesn't want to empower a permanent standing army because it believes that ultimately the people do have to retain the ability to take up arms to defend their own liberty if the government is threatening it as part of their unalienable right to alter and abolish government. So that's the domestic tranquility part. And then the common defense, of course, is hugely important. And Congress has the power to declare war."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that's why the Second Amendment to the Constitution wants to provide for well-regulated militias that can help ensure domestic tranquility, but doesn't want to empower a permanent standing army because it believes that ultimately the people do have to retain the ability to take up arms to defend their own liberty if the government is threatening it as part of their unalienable right to alter and abolish government. So that's the domestic tranquility part. And then the common defense, of course, is hugely important. And Congress has the power to declare war. The president is commander in chief. The president has the power to repel sudden attacks, but otherwise it's supposed to be Congress, in theory at least, that authorizes the deployment of troops abroad. And the parts of Article I for Congress and Article II for the president that give those two branches war-making powers help to ensure that the Constitution provides for the common defense."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Congress has the power to declare war. The president is commander in chief. The president has the power to repel sudden attacks, but otherwise it's supposed to be Congress, in theory at least, that authorizes the deployment of troops abroad. And the parts of Article I for Congress and Article II for the president that give those two branches war-making powers help to ensure that the Constitution provides for the common defense. The final clause I hesitated to introduce because it's so incredibly broad, promote the general welfare. Wow, well, I mean, that could be read as a kind of blank check for the government to do whatever it thinks is necessary to promote the general welfare. But both the Supreme Court and also the framers in ratifying the Constitution made clear that the general welfare clause was not a blank check."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the parts of Article I for Congress and Article II for the president that give those two branches war-making powers help to ensure that the Constitution provides for the common defense. The final clause I hesitated to introduce because it's so incredibly broad, promote the general welfare. Wow, well, I mean, that could be read as a kind of blank check for the government to do whatever it thinks is necessary to promote the general welfare. But both the Supreme Court and also the framers in ratifying the Constitution made clear that the general welfare clause was not a blank check. It was Congress and the president could only exercise the powers that were either explicitly granted by the Constitution or could be fairly implied by them. And yet at the same time, Chief Justice John Marshall and others suggested that those powers have to be broadly construed enough to achieve the purposes of the Constitution, which include promoting the general welfare. So you might say that promoting the general welfare is a different expression of the goal of promoting a more perfect union, except you could say that there's a separate goal of passing laws that are in the general welfare, again, without threatening liberty."}, {"video_title": "The Preamble to the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But both the Supreme Court and also the framers in ratifying the Constitution made clear that the general welfare clause was not a blank check. It was Congress and the president could only exercise the powers that were either explicitly granted by the Constitution or could be fairly implied by them. And yet at the same time, Chief Justice John Marshall and others suggested that those powers have to be broadly construed enough to achieve the purposes of the Constitution, which include promoting the general welfare. So you might say that promoting the general welfare is a different expression of the goal of promoting a more perfect union, except you could say that there's a separate goal of passing laws that are in the general welfare, again, without threatening liberty. And that clause once again embodies this tectonic balance between empowering government, but also protecting retained rights. So just to make sure that we got all of the big points, we've learned that although the preamble itself isn't a basis for justice like the body of the Constitution, it establishes that we the people are the source of political power in the United States. It explains that the Constitution would form a more perfect union between the states and the federal government than the weak Articles of Confederation, while ensuring that the people still retain their natural rights."}, {"video_title": "United States v.  Lopez   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is significant, because many of the cases we have talked about are things that broaden the power of the federal government, while the decision, the United States versus Lopez, which was a split decision, it was a five to four decision, put some limits on federal power. And so just to understand what happened, in 1990, the US Congress passes the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, and it says, it shall be unlawful for any individual, knowingly, to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a school zone. And in 1992, a high school student in San Antonio, Texas, Alfonso Lopez, carries a concealed firearm into his high school. He is arrested, and then he is eventually prosecuted under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, a federal law, and he is tried in a federal court. His lawyers say, hey, this is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the right to regulate whether someone carries a gun into a school or not, while the federal government says, hey, yes, we can do this, because look at the United States Constitution. We, the federal government, have a right to regulate interstate trade."}, {"video_title": "United States v.  Lopez   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He is arrested, and then he is eventually prosecuted under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, a federal law, and he is tried in a federal court. His lawyers say, hey, this is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the right to regulate whether someone carries a gun into a school or not, while the federal government says, hey, yes, we can do this, because look at the United States Constitution. We, the federal government, have a right to regulate interstate trade. And remember what McCullough versus Maryland told us. From the Necessary and Proper Clause, anything that is a means to regulate, say, another enumerated power, like the power to regulate interstate trade, that is also constitutional for the federal government. But then you could imagine, Lopez's lawyer said, hold on a second, that is a very tenuous connection."}, {"video_title": "United States v.  Lopez   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We, the federal government, have a right to regulate interstate trade. And remember what McCullough versus Maryland told us. From the Necessary and Proper Clause, anything that is a means to regulate, say, another enumerated power, like the power to regulate interstate trade, that is also constitutional for the federal government. But then you could imagine, Lopez's lawyer said, hold on a second, that is a very tenuous connection. If you're trying to connect the notion of firearms in schools and school safety to interstate commerce, well, you could connect almost anything to interstate commerce, which would mean that between the Necessary and Proper Clause, the implied powers, and the enumerated powers of regulating interstate commerce, well, then the federal government could just regulate anything. And so it eventually gets appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. And in a split five to four decision, the United States Supreme Court decides in favor of Lopez that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, at least as it was originally written, was indeed unconstitutional, that it's an overreach of federal power."}, {"video_title": "United States v.  Lopez   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But then you could imagine, Lopez's lawyer said, hold on a second, that is a very tenuous connection. If you're trying to connect the notion of firearms in schools and school safety to interstate commerce, well, you could connect almost anything to interstate commerce, which would mean that between the Necessary and Proper Clause, the implied powers, and the enumerated powers of regulating interstate commerce, well, then the federal government could just regulate anything. And so it eventually gets appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. And in a split five to four decision, the United States Supreme Court decides in favor of Lopez that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, at least as it was originally written, was indeed unconstitutional, that it's an overreach of federal power. And to appreciate the majority's thinking, here's an excerpt of the decision by William Rehnquist, who was the Chief Justice and who was in the majority, and he wrote, to uphold the government's contentions here, the contention that the government is making that it is constitutional to regulate the possession of firearms in a school, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the states. So Rehnquist is saying, hey, look, if we say that the regulation of firearms is connected to interstate commerce somehow because it somehow affects the economy between states, well, then almost anything, if you layer pile inference upon inference, then that would give the right to the federal government to police almost anything, a type of police power that's generally retained by the states. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action."}, {"video_title": "United States v.  Lopez   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And in a split five to four decision, the United States Supreme Court decides in favor of Lopez that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, at least as it was originally written, was indeed unconstitutional, that it's an overreach of federal power. And to appreciate the majority's thinking, here's an excerpt of the decision by William Rehnquist, who was the Chief Justice and who was in the majority, and he wrote, to uphold the government's contentions here, the contention that the government is making that it is constitutional to regulate the possession of firearms in a school, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the states. So Rehnquist is saying, hey, look, if we say that the regulation of firearms is connected to interstate commerce somehow because it somehow affects the economy between states, well, then almost anything, if you layer pile inference upon inference, then that would give the right to the federal government to police almost anything, a type of police power that's generally retained by the states. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. And you could go all the way back to McCullough versus Maryland. He's saying, yeah, the Supreme Court has ruled many times in favor of the federal government, having a broad understanding of implied powers. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion."}, {"video_title": "United States v.  Lopez   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. And you could go all the way back to McCullough versus Maryland. He's saying, yeah, the Supreme Court has ruled many times in favor of the federal government, having a broad understanding of implied powers. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion. But we decline here to proceed any further. So they're drawing the line in this decision on the expansion of congressional power. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local."}, {"video_title": "United States v.  Lopez   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion. But we decline here to proceed any further. So they're drawing the line in this decision on the expansion of congressional power. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do. So he's saying, hey, look, if we took the government's side on this, there's no end. There really isn't anything that the federal government can't do."}, {"video_title": "United States v.  Lopez   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do. So he's saying, hey, look, if we took the government's side on this, there's no end. There really isn't anything that the federal government can't do. And then there won't be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. I'll let you decide, but it's a fascinating case. And it's really important in this discussion on power between states and the federal government, because this was a decision that kind of drew a line and said, okay, we can't let the federal government have an unlimited number of powers based on just being able to tie inference upon inference to something like the Commerce Clause."}, {"video_title": "Rulings on majority and minority rights by the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this last clause, which I just underlined, the Equal Protection Clause, has been cited many times, not just in social justice movements, but in many Supreme Court cases. And what we're going to do in this video is think about how rulings by the Supreme Court represent both continuity over time, but also change over time, especially relative to the protection of minority rights. One of the most significant test cases of the 14th Amendment happens almost 30 years after the amendment is ratified in 1896. This is a situation where the state of Louisiana passes a law that African American people have to sit in a separate rail car from white people. And so you have this gentleman here, Homer Plessy, a resident of New Orleans, who decides to test this law. He sits in a white-only car, and he is 1 8th African American, and he gets arrested. This case eventually goes to the United States Supreme Court and they rule that the Louisiana law requiring separate cars is not unconstitutional as long as the cars are judged to be equal."}, {"video_title": "Rulings on majority and minority rights by the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is a situation where the state of Louisiana passes a law that African American people have to sit in a separate rail car from white people. And so you have this gentleman here, Homer Plessy, a resident of New Orleans, who decides to test this law. He sits in a white-only car, and he is 1 8th African American, and he gets arrested. This case eventually goes to the United States Supreme Court and they rule that the Louisiana law requiring separate cars is not unconstitutional as long as the cars are judged to be equal. And this is where that term separate but equal comes from. And this is viewed as a fairly infamous ruling because it was the Supreme Court reinforcing this idea of segregation, even after the 14th Amendment had been passed almost 30 years prior. Now we go almost 60 years in the future in order for segregation to be challenged in a very significant way."}, {"video_title": "Rulings on majority and minority rights by the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This case eventually goes to the United States Supreme Court and they rule that the Louisiana law requiring separate cars is not unconstitutional as long as the cars are judged to be equal. And this is where that term separate but equal comes from. And this is viewed as a fairly infamous ruling because it was the Supreme Court reinforcing this idea of segregation, even after the 14th Amendment had been passed almost 30 years prior. Now we go almost 60 years in the future in order for segregation to be challenged in a very significant way. Then we get to the case of Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954, in which the then Supreme Court rules that no, segregation is not okay. Separate is inherently unequal. And this right over here is a picture of a desegregated classroom around that time, although this is not in Topeka, Kansas."}, {"video_title": "Rulings on majority and minority rights by the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now we go almost 60 years in the future in order for segregation to be challenged in a very significant way. Then we get to the case of Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954, in which the then Supreme Court rules that no, segregation is not okay. Separate is inherently unequal. And this right over here is a picture of a desegregated classroom around that time, although this is not in Topeka, Kansas. But it shows how, based on the passage of time, based on social norms, based on a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court, how they can make rulings that go one way or the other. Plessy versus Ferguson reaffirms segregation. It's perceived to curtail minority rights."}, {"video_title": "Rulings on majority and minority rights by the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this right over here is a picture of a desegregated classroom around that time, although this is not in Topeka, Kansas. But it shows how, based on the passage of time, based on social norms, based on a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court, how they can make rulings that go one way or the other. Plessy versus Ferguson reaffirms segregation. It's perceived to curtail minority rights. While Brown versus Board of Education goes the other way, once again, taking a look at the 14th Amendment. Now if we fast forward to 1993, we have another really interesting test case, Shaw versus Reno. This is a situation where, after the 1990 census, North Carolina takes a look at its congressional districts and sends them to review by the Federal Justice Department."}, {"video_title": "Rulings on majority and minority rights by the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's perceived to curtail minority rights. While Brown versus Board of Education goes the other way, once again, taking a look at the 14th Amendment. Now if we fast forward to 1993, we have another really interesting test case, Shaw versus Reno. This is a situation where, after the 1990 census, North Carolina takes a look at its congressional districts and sends them to review by the Federal Justice Department. The Federal Justice Department decides that the first pass that North Carolina took at the districting only had one black majority congressional district, and they thought that there could be two black majority congressional districts. So the state of North Carolina redistricted again, and they created this 12th district here, which you can see is kind of a strange shape. It's strung along over 160 miles in this very thin district."}, {"video_title": "Rulings on majority and minority rights by the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is a situation where, after the 1990 census, North Carolina takes a look at its congressional districts and sends them to review by the Federal Justice Department. The Federal Justice Department decides that the first pass that North Carolina took at the districting only had one black majority congressional district, and they thought that there could be two black majority congressional districts. So the state of North Carolina redistricted again, and they created this 12th district here, which you can see is kind of a strange shape. It's strung along over 160 miles in this very thin district. Now this was taken to the Supreme Court by citizens of North Carolina, saying that this districting was a severe case of gerrymandering, which we've talked about in other videos, and it should be deemed unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court actually did rule in 1993 that redistricting purely on the basis of race, as was done in this situation, even though it was with the intent of having more minority representation in Congress, that this type of redistricting on the basis of race was unconstitutional. This Supreme Court also cited the Equal Protection Clause and also cited the 14th Amendment, saying, look, once you start redistricting based on racial lines, it creates a type of racial separation, which is unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment."}, {"video_title": "Rulings on majority and minority rights by the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's strung along over 160 miles in this very thin district. Now this was taken to the Supreme Court by citizens of North Carolina, saying that this districting was a severe case of gerrymandering, which we've talked about in other videos, and it should be deemed unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court actually did rule in 1993 that redistricting purely on the basis of race, as was done in this situation, even though it was with the intent of having more minority representation in Congress, that this type of redistricting on the basis of race was unconstitutional. This Supreme Court also cited the Equal Protection Clause and also cited the 14th Amendment, saying, look, once you start redistricting based on racial lines, it creates a type of racial separation, which is unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment. So these are really good cases to know. They show how the Supreme Court can rule differently depending on what time period we are in or depending on the circumstance, that oftentimes when we think about equal protection, we think about protection of minority rights. But as we saw in the case of Shaw versus Reno, even when the intent of, in this case, gerrymandering, is to give more minority representation, it was deemed unconstitutional because, from the Supreme Court's point of view, it violated the 14th Amendment."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So right over here, it's a map of obviously the United States, and what it shows is is how funded the pension liabilities are in the different states. So for example, actually Texas for example, 83% of their pension liabilities are funded. They've set aside 83% of the right amount of money to fund their pension obligations. Not 100%, it is underfunded, but it's not crazy. California, pretty high, 78%. But one of these states is probably jumping out at you, probably because it has been shaded in red, and that is the state of Illinois. And Illinois is in trouble because it's only funded 45% of its pension obligations."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Not 100%, it is underfunded, but it's not crazy. California, pretty high, 78%. But one of these states is probably jumping out at you, probably because it has been shaded in red, and that is the state of Illinois. And Illinois is in trouble because it's only funded 45% of its pension obligations. And Illinois really jumps out because it's in red, but there's a lot of states that are pretty close to Illinois. Louisiana, 56%, Oklahoma, 56%, Kentucky, 54%, West Virginia, 58%. And this is an issue because they've set aside in the past very little money for the pension obligations that are starting to hit now, especially that you have a retiring baby boomer population."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Illinois is in trouble because it's only funded 45% of its pension obligations. And Illinois really jumps out because it's in red, but there's a lot of states that are pretty close to Illinois. Louisiana, 56%, Oklahoma, 56%, Kentucky, 54%, West Virginia, 58%. And this is an issue because they've set aside in the past very little money for the pension obligations that are starting to hit now, especially that you have a retiring baby boomer population. And in order to meet those obligations, those promised obligations, they're going to have to dig into money that was being spent other places. That going in the past, when they were underfunding the pension, they were able to fund other things nicely, but not fund the pension, and kind of kick the can down the road. But now that their can can't be kicked any further, it's gonna have to go the other way around."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is an issue because they've set aside in the past very little money for the pension obligations that are starting to hit now, especially that you have a retiring baby boomer population. And in order to meet those obligations, those promised obligations, they're going to have to dig into money that was being spent other places. That going in the past, when they were underfunding the pension, they were able to fund other things nicely, but not fund the pension, and kind of kick the can down the road. But now that their can can't be kicked any further, it's gonna have to go the other way around. You're gonna have to take money from other things to fund your pensions. And to make it clear, let's focus on the state of Illinois. So this right over here, there's a couple of things going on."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But now that their can can't be kicked any further, it's gonna have to go the other way around. You're gonna have to take money from other things to fund your pensions. And to make it clear, let's focus on the state of Illinois. So this right over here, there's a couple of things going on. In this kind of yellow ochre color, and I'll circle it in yellow ochre, they were talking about the total liabilities. And just to make this graph clear, it's not just the yellow ochre part, this total liabilities, the entire height of each of these bars is the total liabilities. And you see how it has just completely, it's completely blossomed here."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this right over here, there's a couple of things going on. In this kind of yellow ochre color, and I'll circle it in yellow ochre, they were talking about the total liabilities. And just to make this graph clear, it's not just the yellow ochre part, this total liabilities, the entire height of each of these bars is the total liabilities. And you see how it has just completely, it's completely blossomed here. And there's a lot of things that go into the total liabilities. The same things that we talked about in the last video. There are things like return on investment."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you see how it has just completely, it's completely blossomed here. And there's a lot of things that go into the total liabilities. The same things that we talked about in the last video. There are things like return on investment. Return on investment. If you're in a low interest rate environment, like we are now, for example, my money in my savings account, I think is getting like.4% interest, it's getting pretty much no interest. If you're in a low interest rate environment, if you're not getting good returns, and a lot of pensions tend to go into very safe assets, but those are getting very low returns, you're going to have to set aside more money."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There are things like return on investment. Return on investment. If you're in a low interest rate environment, like we are now, for example, my money in my savings account, I think is getting like.4% interest, it's getting pretty much no interest. If you're in a low interest rate environment, if you're not getting good returns, and a lot of pensions tend to go into very safe assets, but those are getting very low returns, you're going to have to set aside more money. And so you see these obligations essentially just growing dramatically. On top of that, you have things like cost of living adjustments. Cost of living adjustments."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you're in a low interest rate environment, if you're not getting good returns, and a lot of pensions tend to go into very safe assets, but those are getting very low returns, you're going to have to set aside more money. And so you see these obligations essentially just growing dramatically. On top of that, you have things like cost of living adjustments. Cost of living adjustments. These are attempts at kind of factoring in inflation, how much things are costing in that region, but they're also sometimes negotiated, and sometimes, and especially in the case of Illinois, they've grown faster than the rate of inflation. And so you have these liabilities, and you see that they're getting less and less well-funded. So if we go right over here, and this is what this green line is, the funding ratio."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Cost of living adjustments. These are attempts at kind of factoring in inflation, how much things are costing in that region, but they're also sometimes negotiated, and sometimes, and especially in the case of Illinois, they've grown faster than the rate of inflation. And so you have these liabilities, and you see that they're getting less and less well-funded. So if we go right over here, and this is what this green line is, the funding ratio. So how well-funded are these liabilities? Red say, the red part of the bar is the part that is not paid for, and the green is the ratio of the red, is the ratio of, or is the ratio of what is funded, essentially this higher part, is the ratio of this part right over here to the entire bar. So it's the ratio of this to the entire bar."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if we go right over here, and this is what this green line is, the funding ratio. So how well-funded are these liabilities? Red say, the red part of the bar is the part that is not paid for, and the green is the ratio of the red, is the ratio of, or is the ratio of what is funded, essentially this higher part, is the ratio of this part right over here to the entire bar. So it's the ratio of this to the entire bar. And you see right over here, Illinois is in a bad situation. Their total liabilities are 138 billion. This is in millions, so it's 138,000 million."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it's the ratio of this to the entire bar. And you see right over here, Illinois is in a bad situation. Their total liabilities are 138 billion. This is in millions, so it's 138,000 million. So it's 138 billion. This is for one state, and 85 or 86 billion of that is unfunded, that they have to figure out some way to get the money because the right amount of money was not being set aside. And to do that, they're going to have to dig in into other things."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is in millions, so it's 138,000 million. So it's 138 billion. This is for one state, and 85 or 86 billion of that is unfunded, that they have to figure out some way to get the money because the right amount of money was not being set aside. And to do that, they're going to have to dig in into other things. So this right over here, this is the pension contribution. So let me circle this. So in this yellow color, once again, is the pension contribution."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And to do that, they're going to have to dig in into other things. So this right over here, this is the pension contribution. So let me circle this. So in this yellow color, once again, is the pension contribution. And now the state, they're going to have to, in order to get to a funded position, they're going to have to make up for all of the underfunding of the past, and also the other factors that are making this obligation even larger. They're going to have to dig into other things. And so you see right over here in yellow, these are the pension, these are the contributions that they're going to have to make for the pension."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in this yellow color, once again, is the pension contribution. And now the state, they're going to have to, in order to get to a funded position, they're going to have to make up for all of the underfunding of the past, and also the other factors that are making this obligation even larger. They're going to have to dig into other things. And so you see right over here in yellow, these are the pension, these are the contributions that they're going to have to make for the pension. And you see that growing. It's growing to in excess by 2018 of six billion a year. But what's really fascinating about this graph is it's passing up total education funding in the state."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so you see right over here in yellow, these are the pension, these are the contributions that they're going to have to make for the pension. And you see that growing. It's growing to in excess by 2018 of six billion a year. But what's really fascinating about this graph is it's passing up total education funding in the state. So the cost of funding retirements, so the cost of funding retirements for people who have already done service for the state, but aren't in service to the state right now, is going to pass up, is going to pass up, and this is happening very soon, is going to pass up actual spending on a statewide basis on education. And at the state level, education is a major, major, major expenditure. So it's going to be passing up a major expenditure, a very important expenditure for the future of the state based on past obligations."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what's really fascinating about this graph is it's passing up total education funding in the state. So the cost of funding retirements, so the cost of funding retirements for people who have already done service for the state, but aren't in service to the state right now, is going to pass up, is going to pass up, and this is happening very soon, is going to pass up actual spending on a statewide basis on education. And at the state level, education is a major, major, major expenditure. So it's going to be passing up a major expenditure, a very important expenditure for the future of the state based on past obligations. And to understand where this is going, and just to understand Illinois' situation, there's 750,000 Illinois, I don't know how to say this, Illinoisans, Illinoisians, who are members of the state's five pension systems. So this is the teacher's retirement system, this is the state university's retirement system, this is the state employee's retirement system, this is the judge's retirement system. You see there's a lot fewer judges in that."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it's going to be passing up a major expenditure, a very important expenditure for the future of the state based on past obligations. And to understand where this is going, and just to understand Illinois' situation, there's 750,000 Illinois, I don't know how to say this, Illinoisans, Illinoisians, who are members of the state's five pension systems. So this is the teacher's retirement system, this is the state university's retirement system, this is the state employee's retirement system, this is the judge's retirement system. You see there's a lot fewer judges in that. There's many more teachers who have been retired, many who have been in the state universities. And this right over here is the General Assembly, very few people who are in the Illinois State Assembly. And you can see kind of comparable salaries."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You see there's a lot fewer judges in that. There's many more teachers who have been retired, many who have been in the state universities. And this right over here is the General Assembly, very few people who are in the Illinois State Assembly. And you can see kind of comparable salaries. This is the retirement benefit, not just the salaries. This is how much, on average, these folks are getting once they retire on an annual basis. So you see that they're pretty reasonable, especially for the judges, especially for the judges, although that they are a small fraction."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you can see kind of comparable salaries. This is the retirement benefit, not just the salaries. This is how much, on average, these folks are getting once they retire on an annual basis. So you see that they're pretty reasonable, especially for the judges, especially for the judges, although that they are a small fraction. But in all fairness, this was promised to these people. They planned, they probably took lower compensation while they were working with the expectation that they would be able to get these benefits once they retired. They also probably stayed in the jobs longer."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you see that they're pretty reasonable, especially for the judges, especially for the judges, although that they are a small fraction. But in all fairness, this was promised to these people. They planned, they probably took lower compensation while they were working with the expectation that they would be able to get these benefits once they retired. They also probably stayed in the jobs longer. This was a way of retaining employees because they knew that they were going to get this benefit. So you might say, oh, these are really, really great benefits, but at the same time, these people probably sacrificed other things in order to get these benefits now. But it's a very hard question."}, {"video_title": "Illinois pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They also probably stayed in the jobs longer. This was a way of retaining employees because they knew that they were going to get this benefit. So you might say, oh, these are really, really great benefits, but at the same time, these people probably sacrificed other things in order to get these benefits now. But it's a very hard question. When you look at this, you're like, okay, you say, well, these people, they've done service, they've put these expectations, but at the same time, you're like, well, this is really cutting in, and this is just one thing that I'm showing. It's really cutting into very important areas of investment for the entire state. So the whole reason of really just surfacing this, this whole pension issue, is just to put this in, and hopefully people understand what the issues are because that's the only way that fairly hard decisions are going to have to be made, decisions on cutting necessary investment or restructuring or who knows what it might be."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more about Article 5, I talked to two experts, Professor Michael Rapoport, who is the Darling Foundation Professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, where he also serves as the Director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, and David Strauss, who's the Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, and author of The Living Constitution. Professor Strauss, Article 5 provides this process for amending the Constitution. Can you take us through that process a little bit? How does it work? The quick description of the process is it's really hard. It's really hard to amend the Constitution. There are actually a couple of different processes that are laid out in Article 5, but only one has ever been used."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How does it work? The quick description of the process is it's really hard. It's really hard to amend the Constitution. There are actually a couple of different processes that are laid out in Article 5, but only one has ever been used. Amendment starts in Congress, and 2 3rds of each house of Congress, 2 3rds of the House of Representatives, and 2 3rds of the Senate has to approve the amendment. And then it goes to the states, and 3 quarters of the states have to approve the amendment. So you have to have a really strong consensus in order to get the Constitution changed that way."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There are actually a couple of different processes that are laid out in Article 5, but only one has ever been used. Amendment starts in Congress, and 2 3rds of each house of Congress, 2 3rds of the House of Representatives, and 2 3rds of the Senate has to approve the amendment. And then it goes to the states, and 3 quarters of the states have to approve the amendment. So you have to have a really strong consensus in order to get the Constitution changed that way. So, Professor Rapoport, take us through this process of amending the Constitution. Why did the framers set it up this way? The framers gave a good bit of thought to coming up with an amendment process, because they recognized that the Constitution might need to be changed over time, either because there were problems with it that weren't anticipated, or because circumstances or values changed."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you have to have a really strong consensus in order to get the Constitution changed that way. So, Professor Rapoport, take us through this process of amending the Constitution. Why did the framers set it up this way? The framers gave a good bit of thought to coming up with an amendment process, because they recognized that the Constitution might need to be changed over time, either because there were problems with it that weren't anticipated, or because circumstances or values changed. So there are two steps to the amendment process. For an amendment to go into the Constitution, to become part of the Constitution, it has to be both proposed and ratified. On the proposal side, the Congress can propose."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The framers gave a good bit of thought to coming up with an amendment process, because they recognized that the Constitution might need to be changed over time, either because there were problems with it that weren't anticipated, or because circumstances or values changed. So there are two steps to the amendment process. For an amendment to go into the Constitution, to become part of the Constitution, it has to be both proposed and ratified. On the proposal side, the Congress can propose. Alternatively, a proposal can come from the action of the state legislatures. So 2 3rds of the state legislature say, we'd like to have a constitutional convention propose an amendment. So there's two parts of that, obviously."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "On the proposal side, the Congress can propose. Alternatively, a proposal can come from the action of the state legislatures. So 2 3rds of the state legislature say, we'd like to have a constitutional convention propose an amendment. So there's two parts of that, obviously. The state legislatures have got to want it, and then you get a calling of a constitutional convention. Okay, that's the proposal side. There's also the ratification side, which is a little bit simpler."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So there's two parts of that, obviously. The state legislatures have got to want it, and then you get a calling of a constitutional convention. Okay, that's the proposal side. There's also the ratification side, which is a little bit simpler. You need 3 quarters of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. And they can ratify it either through the actions of the state legislatures, or the actions of state conventions, which are special bodies which would be elected in order to decide one question, whether or not to ratify that proposed constitutional amendment. This is fascinating."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's also the ratification side, which is a little bit simpler. You need 3 quarters of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. And they can ratify it either through the actions of the state legislatures, or the actions of state conventions, which are special bodies which would be elected in order to decide one question, whether or not to ratify that proposed constitutional amendment. This is fascinating. So I actually had no idea about the 2 3rds of the state legislatures being able to propose a constitutional amendment. How often does that happen? It has never occurred throughout our history, although a couple of times there were actions taken to sort of move in that direction."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is fascinating. So I actually had no idea about the 2 3rds of the state legislatures being able to propose a constitutional amendment. How often does that happen? It has never occurred throughout our history, although a couple of times there were actions taken to sort of move in that direction. But we've never actually had a constitutional convention that has proposed any amendments. It's important to go into why the framers would have set up the system the way they did. The most usual situation is for the Congress to propose the amendments, and that's happened in all of the 27 amendments, which have been ratified, for become part of our constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It has never occurred throughout our history, although a couple of times there were actions taken to sort of move in that direction. But we've never actually had a constitutional convention that has proposed any amendments. It's important to go into why the framers would have set up the system the way they did. The most usual situation is for the Congress to propose the amendments, and that's happened in all of the 27 amendments, which have been ratified, for become part of our constitution. But what happens if the Congress is the problem? What happens if the Congress is doing, is usurping power, or they're standing in the way of changes that are important, or they need to be reformed? You can't count on the Congress to wanna reform itself."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The most usual situation is for the Congress to propose the amendments, and that's happened in all of the 27 amendments, which have been ratified, for become part of our constitution. But what happens if the Congress is the problem? What happens if the Congress is doing, is usurping power, or they're standing in the way of changes that are important, or they need to be reformed? You can't count on the Congress to wanna reform itself. So what they did was to have this alternative mechanism which would bypass the Congress. And that alternative mechanism was the constitutional convention. So the state legislatures propose, apply for it."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You can't count on the Congress to wanna reform itself. So what they did was to have this alternative mechanism which would bypass the Congress. And that alternative mechanism was the constitutional convention. So the state legislatures propose, apply for it. And then the separate entity, the constitutional convention, makes a proposal. So they were quite explicit in discussing this, that they wanted this as an alternative to the Congress. So was this on purpose, that they made it very difficult to amend the constitution?"}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the state legislatures propose, apply for it. And then the separate entity, the constitutional convention, makes a proposal. So they were quite explicit in discussing this, that they wanted this as an alternative to the Congress. So was this on purpose, that they made it very difficult to amend the constitution? Well, it sure seems like it. Now, of course, we don't know back then what they had in mind, whether they thought, well, the House, the Senate, the states, they'll sort of be all be run by the same kind of people, and they'll kind of agree on things. Maybe they thought that, we just don't know."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So was this on purpose, that they made it very difficult to amend the constitution? Well, it sure seems like it. Now, of course, we don't know back then what they had in mind, whether they thought, well, the House, the Senate, the states, they'll sort of be all be run by the same kind of people, and they'll kind of agree on things. Maybe they thought that, we just don't know. But whatever they were thinking, what they gave us, was a very difficult process to get through. So how long was it from the period when the constitution was first ratified to the first amendment to the constitution beyond the Bill of Rights? Okay, so the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe they thought that, we just don't know. But whatever they were thinking, what they gave us, was a very difficult process to get through. So how long was it from the period when the constitution was first ratified to the first amendment to the constitution beyond the Bill of Rights? Okay, so the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791. And then just a mere three years later, we had the 11th amendment. There was an 11th amendment in 1798 to correct really kind of a technical problem that the Supreme Court did something that the framers really didn't anticipate it would do, didn't want it to do. And the 11th amendment was adopted to correct that."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay, so the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791. And then just a mere three years later, we had the 11th amendment. There was an 11th amendment in 1798 to correct really kind of a technical problem that the Supreme Court did something that the framers really didn't anticipate it would do, didn't want it to do. And the 11th amendment was adopted to correct that. The 12th amendment was adopted in 1804 after the really kind of a disaster in the election of 1800, when there was a tie in the electoral college. The framers had not foreseen the rise of political parties and political parties made the system for electing the president they had given us very difficult to work with. But then there was nothing, that was 1804."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the 11th amendment was adopted to correct that. The 12th amendment was adopted in 1804 after the really kind of a disaster in the election of 1800, when there was a tie in the electoral college. The framers had not foreseen the rise of political parties and political parties made the system for electing the president they had given us very difficult to work with. But then there was nothing, that was 1804. Then there was nothing until after the Civil War. And after the Civil War, there were three amendments, then nothing again really until the Progressive Era in the early 20th century, when there were again a bunch of amendments. And then after then, things had sort of paled off."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But then there was nothing, that was 1804. Then there was nothing until after the Civil War. And after the Civil War, there were three amendments, then nothing again really until the Progressive Era in the early 20th century, when there were again a bunch of amendments. And then after then, things had sort of paled off. So we really see these kind of, as I said, these kind of waves in our history. What do you think brings those waves on? Why are there some eras when there are lots of constitutional amendments and other eras when there's nothing?"}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then after then, things had sort of paled off. So we really see these kind of, as I said, these kind of waves in our history. What do you think brings those waves on? Why are there some eras when there are lots of constitutional amendments and other eras when there's nothing? Well, Kim, here I'm gonna say something that I think some people will disagree with, but I think it's right. And that is that I don't think the process of amending the Constitution has really been the way we actually change it. I think what happens is just because the amendment process is so difficult, we've worked out other ways of changing things."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why are there some eras when there are lots of constitutional amendments and other eras when there's nothing? Well, Kim, here I'm gonna say something that I think some people will disagree with, but I think it's right. And that is that I don't think the process of amending the Constitution has really been the way we actually change it. I think what happens is just because the amendment process is so difficult, we've worked out other ways of changing things. And so amendments come along sometimes because a change has already happened and people decide, well, let's put it in the Constitution just so we can kind of have official recognition of it. But a lot of times changes happen and they're a little bit too controversial to get into the Constitution, but they seem pretty solid and pretty secure. So we just don't, I guess it's fair to say, don't bother to amend the Constitution or don't wanna go through the process of amending the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I think what happens is just because the amendment process is so difficult, we've worked out other ways of changing things. And so amendments come along sometimes because a change has already happened and people decide, well, let's put it in the Constitution just so we can kind of have official recognition of it. But a lot of times changes happen and they're a little bit too controversial to get into the Constitution, but they seem pretty solid and pretty secure. So we just don't, I guess it's fair to say, don't bother to amend the Constitution or don't wanna go through the process of amending the Constitution. Very often people's values may change or they may differ from what's in the Constitution and it may take a time or circumstances may finally occur that crystallize this desire to change the Constitution. And all of a sudden the opportunity is there and people can suddenly pass a constitutional amendment. It's only gonna occur during certain circumstances, especially when there's strong support for it."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So we just don't, I guess it's fair to say, don't bother to amend the Constitution or don't wanna go through the process of amending the Constitution. Very often people's values may change or they may differ from what's in the Constitution and it may take a time or circumstances may finally occur that crystallize this desire to change the Constitution. And all of a sudden the opportunity is there and people can suddenly pass a constitutional amendment. It's only gonna occur during certain circumstances, especially when there's strong support for it. Very interesting, yeah. So it's unlikely that we're gonna have a constitutional amendment anytime in the near future. When was the last constitutional amendment?"}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's only gonna occur during certain circumstances, especially when there's strong support for it. Very interesting, yeah. So it's unlikely that we're gonna have a constitutional amendment anytime in the near future. When was the last constitutional amendment? So the simple answer to that was in 1971, we got the 26th Amendment that was both proposed and then remarkably, it's all time record, proposed and ratified in three months and eight days. And that was the amendment that guaranteed the right to vote of 18 year old. Ah, right, so sort of as a response to the Vietnam War."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When was the last constitutional amendment? So the simple answer to that was in 1971, we got the 26th Amendment that was both proposed and then remarkably, it's all time record, proposed and ratified in three months and eight days. And that was the amendment that guaranteed the right to vote of 18 year old. Ah, right, so sort of as a response to the Vietnam War. Yes, yes. But there actually has been one additional amendment, the 27th Amendment, right? So why isn't that the most recent one?"}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Ah, right, so sort of as a response to the Vietnam War. Yes, yes. But there actually has been one additional amendment, the 27th Amendment, right? So why isn't that the most recent one? Well, here's the funny thing about it, the 27th Amendment was proposed as part of the original Bill of Rights in 1789. So this amendment was proposed in 1789, ratified in 1992, so it took 202 years. Interesting, and what's the 27th Amendment about?"}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So why isn't that the most recent one? Well, here's the funny thing about it, the 27th Amendment was proposed as part of the original Bill of Rights in 1789. So this amendment was proposed in 1789, ratified in 1992, so it took 202 years. Interesting, and what's the 27th Amendment about? That has to do with congressional salary increases. It basically says if Congress wants to raise its own salary, the increase can't take effect until the next election. So it basically gives the voters a chance to say, hey, we don't like what you did, we're gonna vote you out of office for increasing your salary."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Interesting, and what's the 27th Amendment about? That has to do with congressional salary increases. It basically says if Congress wants to raise its own salary, the increase can't take effect until the next election. So it basically gives the voters a chance to say, hey, we don't like what you did, we're gonna vote you out of office for increasing your salary. So one thing that strikes me about Article V and just the fact that the founders included an amendment process altogether, it seems very humble and farsighted to include a way for the document itself to evolve in a way. Do you think that the framers approached the Constitution with the idea that there were things in the future that they just wouldn't be able to anticipate? They had before them, and were acutely aware of, a history in which efforts to establish governments had failed, and they were really trying to work with that and make sure they didn't do the same thing."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it basically gives the voters a chance to say, hey, we don't like what you did, we're gonna vote you out of office for increasing your salary. So one thing that strikes me about Article V and just the fact that the founders included an amendment process altogether, it seems very humble and farsighted to include a way for the document itself to evolve in a way. Do you think that the framers approached the Constitution with the idea that there were things in the future that they just wouldn't be able to anticipate? They had before them, and were acutely aware of, a history in which efforts to establish governments had failed, and they were really trying to work with that and make sure they didn't do the same thing. So they knew what a hard job they were embarking on. And they made it clear, I mean, there's a famous passage in which James Madison said, look, we know a lot of these provisions that we're writing in the Constitution, their meaning is unclear, and their meaning will have to be, his phrase was liquidated, which is to say people have to figure out what this means because we know what we're giving you is unclear in some ways. So yes, absolutely, they knew there were things that they could not anticipate."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They had before them, and were acutely aware of, a history in which efforts to establish governments had failed, and they were really trying to work with that and make sure they didn't do the same thing. So they knew what a hard job they were embarking on. And they made it clear, I mean, there's a famous passage in which James Madison said, look, we know a lot of these provisions that we're writing in the Constitution, their meaning is unclear, and their meaning will have to be, his phrase was liquidated, which is to say people have to figure out what this means because we know what we're giving you is unclear in some ways. So yes, absolutely, they knew there were things that they could not anticipate. The framers themselves weren't in agreement on what freedom of speech means. Some of them enacted, voted for, and got into, enacted laws that restricted speech in ways that we would find intolerable today. We'd say they violate the First Amendment."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So yes, absolutely, they knew there were things that they could not anticipate. The framers themselves weren't in agreement on what freedom of speech means. Some of them enacted, voted for, and got into, enacted laws that restricted speech in ways that we would find intolerable today. We'd say they violate the First Amendment. But here you had some of the guys who drafted the First Amendment voting for those laws. So near the end of Article V, there's this kind of long-winded clause that says, no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article. Now, if I'm cross-referencing this correctly, what they're really saying here is you can't make any amendments about slavery."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We'd say they violate the First Amendment. But here you had some of the guys who drafted the First Amendment voting for those laws. So near the end of Article V, there's this kind of long-winded clause that says, no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article. Now, if I'm cross-referencing this correctly, what they're really saying here is you can't make any amendments about slavery. So why is this here? And why are they talking around it so obliquely? The interesting thing about this is what did they do?"}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, if I'm cross-referencing this correctly, what they're really saying here is you can't make any amendments about slavery. So why is this here? And why are they talking around it so obliquely? The interesting thing about this is what did they do? They basically said, for 20 years, there's not gonna be any amendments that are going to speak to the slave trade. And the Constitution is very, let's say, shy about using the term slavery or referring to slavery. It actually never actually refers to the term slave."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The interesting thing about this is what did they do? They basically said, for 20 years, there's not gonna be any amendments that are going to speak to the slave trade. And the Constitution is very, let's say, shy about using the term slavery or referring to slavery. It actually never actually refers to the term slave. There's a variety of thoughts about what was going on, but one very common view about this is that the Constitution was sort of a little bit embarrassed that the framers were a little bit embarrassed, or at least some of the framers were embarrassed about it. And so they didn't wanna make reference to it too explicitly. They might've been a little bit worried about what the verdict of history would be."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It actually never actually refers to the term slave. There's a variety of thoughts about what was going on, but one very common view about this is that the Constitution was sort of a little bit embarrassed that the framers were a little bit embarrassed, or at least some of the framers were embarrassed about it. And so they didn't wanna make reference to it too explicitly. They might've been a little bit worried about what the verdict of history would be. So they knew on some level the sort of immorality of slavery, but there it is right there in Article V, and there are other places in the Constitution too where they don't use the word, but what they're doing is protecting slavery. Now, they did add these amendments to the Constitution about slavery and about, as you say, equal citizenship and voting, but the 14th Amendment providing equal citizenship, that was pretty much nullified in most respects for a large part of our history. States found a way to get around that."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They might've been a little bit worried about what the verdict of history would be. So they knew on some level the sort of immorality of slavery, but there it is right there in Article V, and there are other places in the Constitution too where they don't use the word, but what they're doing is protecting slavery. Now, they did add these amendments to the Constitution about slavery and about, as you say, equal citizenship and voting, but the 14th Amendment providing equal citizenship, that was pretty much nullified in most respects for a large part of our history. States found a way to get around that. The 15th Amendment was also something that was just not very effective in preventing African-Americans from being denied the vote. And yes, there are provisions in the Constitution that are there, and you can invoke them, and you can rely on them, but if you just look at the text of the Constitution, I think you get a misleading impression about how the Constitution in our history has actually worked. Now, this is a very good point because I think one of the hardest things for students of US history to understand is, how is it possible that after the 14th Amendment was passed, things like Jim Crow happened?"}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "States found a way to get around that. The 15th Amendment was also something that was just not very effective in preventing African-Americans from being denied the vote. And yes, there are provisions in the Constitution that are there, and you can invoke them, and you can rely on them, but if you just look at the text of the Constitution, I think you get a misleading impression about how the Constitution in our history has actually worked. Now, this is a very good point because I think one of the hardest things for students of US history to understand is, how is it possible that after the 14th Amendment was passed, things like Jim Crow happened? And I guess the answer is, the Constitution is only in force if it's enforced. Kim, that's exactly right. It's words on a page."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, this is a very good point because I think one of the hardest things for students of US history to understand is, how is it possible that after the 14th Amendment was passed, things like Jim Crow happened? And I guess the answer is, the Constitution is only in force if it's enforced. Kim, that's exactly right. It's words on a page. You know, the text is fine, it can say all the right things, but the institutions and the popular will have to be in place to make some of those fine words. Interesting, so how do you think our government might be different if the Constitution didn't include this amendment process? I don't think it would have been that different."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's words on a page. You know, the text is fine, it can say all the right things, but the institutions and the popular will have to be in place to make some of those fine words. Interesting, so how do you think our government might be different if the Constitution didn't include this amendment process? I don't think it would have been that different. Just because Article V gives us such a hard process to go through, just because it's so hard to amend the Constitution, we figured out other ways to change the Constitution in practice, even if the words on the page are the same. And I think if there were no Article V, we would have found a way to get to where we wanted to get to as a country by those means, by legislation, by presidential action, by Supreme Court decision, and just by the people in their lives saying, you know, we need to go in this direction. We need to go, say, in the direction of women's equality."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I don't think it would have been that different. Just because Article V gives us such a hard process to go through, just because it's so hard to amend the Constitution, we figured out other ways to change the Constitution in practice, even if the words on the page are the same. And I think if there were no Article V, we would have found a way to get to where we wanted to get to as a country by those means, by legislation, by presidential action, by Supreme Court decision, and just by the people in their lives saying, you know, we need to go in this direction. We need to go, say, in the direction of women's equality. And by the way, there's no amendment giving women equal rights either. But that's where we've gotten to. And I think that would have been the pattern if there were no formal amendment process."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We need to go, say, in the direction of women's equality. And by the way, there's no amendment giving women equal rights either. But that's where we've gotten to. And I think that would have been the pattern if there were no formal amendment process. There's a second way in which you could have constitutional change, which is you could simply say, all right, this Constitution was pretty good for a while. It's now outlived its usefulness. Let's have a new Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I think that would have been the pattern if there were no formal amendment process. There's a second way in which you could have constitutional change, which is you could simply say, all right, this Constitution was pretty good for a while. It's now outlived its usefulness. Let's have a new Constitution. That would seem like a very radical, big thing to do. No one, virtually no one proposes that at the federal level. But in the states, lots of states have changed their constitutions, not simply passed the constitutional amendment, but just gotten rid of the whole old Constitution and adopted a new one."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's have a new Constitution. That would seem like a very radical, big thing to do. No one, virtually no one proposes that at the federal level. But in the states, lots of states have changed their constitutions, not simply passed the constitutional amendment, but just gotten rid of the whole old Constitution and adopted a new one. That's happened many times. And so if we didn't have a constitutional amendment process, it's quite possible that that's exactly what we would have seen at the federal level. Yeah, this is really fascinating because we really think a lot about what the framers intended, you know, for certain amendments, for example, you know, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, what did they really mean by those things?"}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But in the states, lots of states have changed their constitutions, not simply passed the constitutional amendment, but just gotten rid of the whole old Constitution and adopted a new one. That's happened many times. And so if we didn't have a constitutional amendment process, it's quite possible that that's exactly what we would have seen at the federal level. Yeah, this is really fascinating because we really think a lot about what the framers intended, you know, for certain amendments, for example, you know, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, what did they really mean by those things? But if we had just kind of every now and again said, okay, we're done with that, let's do a new Constitution, we wouldn't necessarily have that debate. We just say, okay, this is what we meant at the time. Famously, Thomas Jefferson said, oh, you know, it's really not right to have a Constitution that's gonna continue over time and bind future generations."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, this is really fascinating because we really think a lot about what the framers intended, you know, for certain amendments, for example, you know, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, what did they really mean by those things? But if we had just kind of every now and again said, okay, we're done with that, let's do a new Constitution, we wouldn't necessarily have that debate. We just say, okay, this is what we meant at the time. Famously, Thomas Jefferson said, oh, you know, it's really not right to have a Constitution that's gonna continue over time and bind future generations. And so we ought to have a new Constitution every 19 years when there's a new generation. And his close friend, James Madison, had to disagree with him and basically said, look, I understand why you're saying that, but you also have to realize the incredible disruption that would cause every 20 years. People wouldn't be able to rely on the existing rights that are in the Constitution because they would know in a certain period of time, new ones would be enacted."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Famously, Thomas Jefferson said, oh, you know, it's really not right to have a Constitution that's gonna continue over time and bind future generations. And so we ought to have a new Constitution every 19 years when there's a new generation. And his close friend, James Madison, had to disagree with him and basically said, look, I understand why you're saying that, but you also have to realize the incredible disruption that would cause every 20 years. People wouldn't be able to rely on the existing rights that are in the Constitution because they would know in a certain period of time, new ones would be enacted. We had that debate. Madison won in the sense that the US Constitution is supposed to last for a long-term period. There's no 20-year limit on it."}, {"video_title": "Article V of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "People wouldn't be able to rely on the existing rights that are in the Constitution because they would know in a certain period of time, new ones would be enacted. We had that debate. Madison won in the sense that the US Constitution is supposed to last for a long-term period. There's no 20-year limit on it. And one of the things that's been beneficial for the United States as a result of that is that we've inherited these constitutional rights that people have a lot of reverence for. So we've learned that there are two ways to amend the Constitution, through Congress or through a special constitutional convention called by the states. Either way, adding an amendment to the Constitution is really difficult to do, so much so that the American people have only in special circumstances used a constitutional amendment to affect social or political change."}, {"video_title": "The Bill of Rights an introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And these amendments guaranteed individual liberty to make sure that citizens had a stated expectation for what the government could or could not do to them. And you can kind of see here in many of these rights the legacy of the Revolutionary War and the kinds of government abuses that citizens in the colonies had feared. And I'm going to go over these very quickly. We'll spend a lot more time in other videos talking more about these amendments, but I want to give you an overall sense of what they're driving at. Now the first four amendments guarantee individual liberties. These are freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, freedom to ask the government for redress of grievances or to deal with a problem that the government may have caused in your life. The right to bear arms and assemble militias."}, {"video_title": "The Bill of Rights an introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We'll spend a lot more time in other videos talking more about these amendments, but I want to give you an overall sense of what they're driving at. Now the first four amendments guarantee individual liberties. These are freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, freedom to ask the government for redress of grievances or to deal with a problem that the government may have caused in your life. The right to bear arms and assemble militias. State and local militias had made the Revolutionary War a success for the United States. A ban on quartering soldiers in homes. Recall that the Quartering Act, when the British government said that the colonies had to put up soldiers in their homes was a major driver of revolution."}, {"video_title": "The Bill of Rights an introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The right to bear arms and assemble militias. State and local militias had made the Revolutionary War a success for the United States. A ban on quartering soldiers in homes. Recall that the Quartering Act, when the British government said that the colonies had to put up soldiers in their homes was a major driver of revolution. And a ban on unreasonable search and seizure. That is, it would be necessary for the government to get a warrant to enter your home or to search your belongings. The next four amendments in the Bill of Rights deal with protections for people accused of crimes."}, {"video_title": "The Bill of Rights an introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Recall that the Quartering Act, when the British government said that the colonies had to put up soldiers in their homes was a major driver of revolution. And a ban on unreasonable search and seizure. That is, it would be necessary for the government to get a warrant to enter your home or to search your belongings. The next four amendments in the Bill of Rights deal with protections for people accused of crimes. And again, you see the legacy of the Revolutionary War in the idea that the crown had had too much power to persecute individuals. So this includes things like the right to due process. That is, to make sure that all the steps of following the law are taken."}, {"video_title": "The Bill of Rights an introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The next four amendments in the Bill of Rights deal with protections for people accused of crimes. And again, you see the legacy of the Revolutionary War in the idea that the crown had had too much power to persecute individuals. So this includes things like the right to due process. That is, to make sure that all the steps of following the law are taken. A ban on being tried twice for the same crime. Rights to a speedy and public trial. A jury of your peers."}, {"video_title": "The Bill of Rights an introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That is, to make sure that all the steps of following the law are taken. A ban on being tried twice for the same crime. Rights to a speedy and public trial. A jury of your peers. To even have a jury in cases that don't have to do with violent crimes, but rather civil disputes. And a ban on excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. Basically, this is a guarantee that the government will respect the rights of individuals."}, {"video_title": "The Bill of Rights an introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A jury of your peers. To even have a jury in cases that don't have to do with violent crimes, but rather civil disputes. And a ban on excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. Basically, this is a guarantee that the government will respect the rights of individuals. Now one of the arguments made against including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution was that listing out those rights might then mean that they were the only rights. And that by listing out these rights in particular, they might be forfeiting their liberties in other ways. So the Ninth and Tenth Amendments attempt to deal with that worry."}, {"video_title": "The Bill of Rights an introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Basically, this is a guarantee that the government will respect the rights of individuals. Now one of the arguments made against including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution was that listing out those rights might then mean that they were the only rights. And that by listing out these rights in particular, they might be forfeiting their liberties in other ways. So the Ninth and Tenth Amendments attempt to deal with that worry. They say in the Ninth Amendment, any right that isn't listed here is still retained by the people. So this is not an exhaustive list. This is not the complete list of all the rights retained by the people."}, {"video_title": "The Bill of Rights an introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the Ninth and Tenth Amendments attempt to deal with that worry. They say in the Ninth Amendment, any right that isn't listed here is still retained by the people. So this is not an exhaustive list. This is not the complete list of all the rights retained by the people. And the Tenth Amendment is slightly different, but kind of on the same line. They say that if this Constitution has not delegated a right directly to the federal government, then that right is reserved to the states or the people. So the federal government can only do the things that are listed in this Constitution."}, {"video_title": "The Bill of Rights an introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is not the complete list of all the rights retained by the people. And the Tenth Amendment is slightly different, but kind of on the same line. They say that if this Constitution has not delegated a right directly to the federal government, then that right is reserved to the states or the people. So the federal government can only do the things that are listed in this Constitution. It is a limited government, limited by this document. On the other hand, the rights of the people are unlimited. So if the Constitution doesn't say that the federal government can do it, that's then a right of the states or the people."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Ventri, who's the Director of Admissions and Financial Aid at Phillips Andover and what we're hoping to talk or start talking about in this video is really just the financial aid process and in particular the FAFSA. So I guess I should probably do that in all caps. My first question for either of you is I guess what is the FAFSA and what does it actually stand for? Right, so the FAFSA is the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and it's really important for students to realize that free part of this name because there is an opportunity to get on the web and go to FAFSA.com and somebody will happily help you with it but you need to pay for it. So the first thing we talk with students a lot about is the FAFSA is a free form, you should not be paying for it. And the title again it's by the federal government, they use a rubric to sort of figure out based on this form how much your family should contribute to a college education. And did I get the right, it's Free Application for Federal Student Aid?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Right, so the FAFSA is the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and it's really important for students to realize that free part of this name because there is an opportunity to get on the web and go to FAFSA.com and somebody will happily help you with it but you need to pay for it. So the first thing we talk with students a lot about is the FAFSA is a free form, you should not be paying for it. And the title again it's by the federal government, they use a rubric to sort of figure out based on this form how much your family should contribute to a college education. And did I get the right, it's Free Application for Federal Student Aid? Yes. And just to hit the point home of what you just said, it should absolutely be free and there are places where the people will charge you to kind of optimize it or fill it out for you? That's correct."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And did I get the right, it's Free Application for Federal Student Aid? Yes. And just to hit the point home of what you just said, it should absolutely be free and there are places where the people will charge you to kind of optimize it or fill it out for you? That's correct. So the first thing normally when you start to type in, if you type in on a search engine FAFSA, a lot of times FAFSA.com pops up. It's a legitimate site but they charge you something like $80-$85 to help you fill out the form. So you want to go to FAFSA.ed.gov to start this process..ed.gov and there it will be free."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's correct. So the first thing normally when you start to type in, if you type in on a search engine FAFSA, a lot of times FAFSA.com pops up. It's a legitimate site but they charge you something like $80-$85 to help you fill out the form. So you want to go to FAFSA.ed.gov to start this process..ed.gov and there it will be free. And what is, you know, when you fill out this form and in future videos we'll actually take a look at the form itself, but what I guess, you know, what do you input into it and what comes out of it and who uses that information? I think for many students who are applying to college right now, they are accustomed to telling their story in essays and in various pieces of their application. And they have to think of the FAFSA as just their family's financial story."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you want to go to FAFSA.ed.gov to start this process..ed.gov and there it will be free. And what is, you know, when you fill out this form and in future videos we'll actually take a look at the form itself, but what I guess, you know, what do you input into it and what comes out of it and who uses that information? I think for many students who are applying to college right now, they are accustomed to telling their story in essays and in various pieces of their application. And they have to think of the FAFSA as just their family's financial story. And their financial story has many variables, but most importantly, the things that the FAFSA asks for are simplified as things that would be questions that students could probably answer right off the top of their head in terms of their family income and whether they own a home or whether they rent where they live. It's things like that. And I mean, I remember filling this and we were talking about this before, I guess, clicking record."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they have to think of the FAFSA as just their family's financial story. And their financial story has many variables, but most importantly, the things that the FAFSA asks for are simplified as things that would be questions that students could probably answer right off the top of their head in terms of their family income and whether they own a home or whether they rent where they live. It's things like that. And I mean, I remember filling this and we were talking about this before, I guess, clicking record. All of us, I guess, were significant recipients of financial aid, of need-based financial aid. And I remember filling it out. I remember I kind of had my mom's tax form, which I had to fill out for her right before filling out the FAFSA."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I mean, I remember filling this and we were talking about this before, I guess, clicking record. All of us, I guess, were significant recipients of financial aid, of need-based financial aid. And I remember filling it out. I remember I kind of had my mom's tax form, which I had to fill out for her right before filling out the FAFSA. Exactly. But that's essentially, I remember, at least this was in the early 90s, kind of the inputs that I needed to be able to fill out most of the form. And that's correct."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I remember I kind of had my mom's tax form, which I had to fill out for her right before filling out the FAFSA. Exactly. But that's essentially, I remember, at least this was in the early 90s, kind of the inputs that I needed to be able to fill out most of the form. And that's correct. Yeah, I mean, one of the things that, you know, specifically looking at and working with a lot of low income families, one of the things to realize is that it generally is actually a pretty simple form because there aren't a lot of things that make it complicated. There aren't trust funds. There aren't investments."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's correct. Yeah, I mean, one of the things that, you know, specifically looking at and working with a lot of low income families, one of the things to realize is that it generally is actually a pretty simple form because there aren't a lot of things that make it complicated. There aren't trust funds. There aren't investments. There aren't probably, and a lot of times, sometimes there are homes that are owned, but a lot of times they're just renting. Usually it's a paycheck that comes in and it's a sort of a standard, you know, paycheck that comes in for the year. So it's actually a pretty simple form."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There aren't investments. There aren't probably, and a lot of times, sometimes there are homes that are owned, but a lot of times they're just renting. Usually it's a paycheck that comes in and it's a sort of a standard, you know, paycheck that comes in for the year. So it's actually a pretty simple form. It's just getting students to step up and do it is the real challenge. And the reason, obviously, it's pretty obvious why they care about income. That's kind of, you know, just the total amount of money your family's making."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it's actually a pretty simple form. It's just getting students to step up and do it is the real challenge. And the reason, obviously, it's pretty obvious why they care about income. That's kind of, you know, just the total amount of money your family's making. But then the reason why they care about things like home ownership, and if I remember properly, you know, they remember, they ask things about the number of siblings you have, and they try to understand your family's expenses too. And the whole reason is to kind of figure out their ability to pay for college. That's right."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's kind of, you know, just the total amount of money your family's making. But then the reason why they care about things like home ownership, and if I remember properly, you know, they remember, they ask things about the number of siblings you have, and they try to understand your family's expenses too. And the whole reason is to kind of figure out their ability to pay for college. That's right. So at the outset, students are asked questions to fill out in their family's financial circumstances. And basically what the colleges are trying to do is come to a conclusion which allows them to have a picture of what the family is up against every month, every week, and what's left in the bank, so to speak, at the end of all the family operating expenses. And so what, after you fill out the form, you know, where does that go?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's right. So at the outset, students are asked questions to fill out in their family's financial circumstances. And basically what the colleges are trying to do is come to a conclusion which allows them to have a picture of what the family is up against every month, every week, and what's left in the bank, so to speak, at the end of all the family operating expenses. And so what, after you fill out the form, you know, where does that go? Does, this is at the Department of Education site, but do they process it, or do they just give the form to the universities? What happens after that? Yeah, that's a great point, Sal."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so what, after you fill out the form, you know, where does that go? Does, this is at the Department of Education site, but do they process it, or do they just give the form to the universities? What happens after that? Yeah, that's a great point, Sal. I think one of the misperceptions about the FAFSA is, I'm gonna submit this form to the government, basically, and then they're gonna crunch all these numbers, and then they're gonna determine a financial aid package for my family. I think that's a really common misperception. What the FAFSA, all the FAFSA does is it looks at, again, your family's income, number of kids in the family, other assets, those sorts of things, and it determines an estimated family contribution."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, that's a great point, Sal. I think one of the misperceptions about the FAFSA is, I'm gonna submit this form to the government, basically, and then they're gonna crunch all these numbers, and then they're gonna determine a financial aid package for my family. I think that's a really common misperception. What the FAFSA, all the FAFSA does is it looks at, again, your family's income, number of kids in the family, other assets, those sorts of things, and it determines an estimated family contribution. What a college does with that varies greatly, and I think that's something that, you know, families need to understand. So it also, all of this is going to do is determine a number. That number might mean, you know, your family should be able to contribute a thousand dollars towards your son or daughter's education, five thousand dollars, or zero dollars for that matter, but that's all it does."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What the FAFSA, all the FAFSA does is it looks at, again, your family's income, number of kids in the family, other assets, those sorts of things, and it determines an estimated family contribution. What a college does with that varies greatly, and I think that's something that, you know, families need to understand. So it also, all of this is going to do is determine a number. That number might mean, you know, your family should be able to contribute a thousand dollars towards your son or daughter's education, five thousand dollars, or zero dollars for that matter, but that's all it does. I see, and the reason why this, I guess, exists is so that colleges would have somewhat a somewhat uniform way of looking at this, and they can feel good that the data is, I guess, real. That's right, and so one of the things in this estimated family contribution is sort of this sense that the family is self-reporting where they stand in their family circumstances financially, and one of the things we want to caution about is that when you receive a sort of estimated family contribution, or what they call the EFC, you want to make sure that's in line with your expectations, because sometimes that number can seem odd to the family when they understand where it came from, and they may have made a mistake in some way on the form. I see, but then that estimated family contribution, then that gets sent to the universities that you have usually at this point have gotten admission to."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That number might mean, you know, your family should be able to contribute a thousand dollars towards your son or daughter's education, five thousand dollars, or zero dollars for that matter, but that's all it does. I see, and the reason why this, I guess, exists is so that colleges would have somewhat a somewhat uniform way of looking at this, and they can feel good that the data is, I guess, real. That's right, and so one of the things in this estimated family contribution is sort of this sense that the family is self-reporting where they stand in their family circumstances financially, and one of the things we want to caution about is that when you receive a sort of estimated family contribution, or what they call the EFC, you want to make sure that's in line with your expectations, because sometimes that number can seem odd to the family when they understand where it came from, and they may have made a mistake in some way on the form. I see, but then that estimated family contribution, then that gets sent to the universities that you have usually at this point have gotten admission to. Well, it'll go to every university ahead of time, so if a student applies to seven schools, you're going to want it there well before decisions come out. There are usually very strict deadlines to get things there in time, but then usually what happens in an admissions office is if, you know, Sal, if I'm reading your application in the admissions office, and I say, great, Sal Khanna is going to be admitted, I call down to our financial aid office. This is all done electronically now, but you know, the financial aid officer, what he will do is open up your electronic file, and he will see the FAFSA sitting in there, and then he will see that, and it'll say, okay, you know, the Khan family should be able to pay, you know, $1,000 towards Sal's education."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I see, but then that estimated family contribution, then that gets sent to the universities that you have usually at this point have gotten admission to. Well, it'll go to every university ahead of time, so if a student applies to seven schools, you're going to want it there well before decisions come out. There are usually very strict deadlines to get things there in time, but then usually what happens in an admissions office is if, you know, Sal, if I'm reading your application in the admissions office, and I say, great, Sal Khanna is going to be admitted, I call down to our financial aid office. This is all done electronically now, but you know, the financial aid officer, what he will do is open up your electronic file, and he will see the FAFSA sitting in there, and then he will see that, and it'll say, okay, you know, the Khan family should be able to pay, you know, $1,000 towards Sal's education. We cost $50,000, so now we're going to have to create a financial aid package for $49,000 to make it possible for you to come here. And so that's before you've been officially admitted? Typically, it's typically when you get admitted, then the admissions office will say, okay, now calculate a financial aid package."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is all done electronically now, but you know, the financial aid officer, what he will do is open up your electronic file, and he will see the FAFSA sitting in there, and then he will see that, and it'll say, okay, you know, the Khan family should be able to pay, you know, $1,000 towards Sal's education. We cost $50,000, so now we're going to have to create a financial aid package for $49,000 to make it possible for you to come here. And so that's before you've been officially admitted? Typically, it's typically when you get admitted, then the admissions office will say, okay, now calculate a financial aid package. And are these, you know, I can imagine a lot of students would worry about this. Are these kind of separate processes, you know, or will the admissions officers be able to see the kind of estimated family contribution, and does that have the potential to kind of affect your chances of admissions? Oh, absolutely."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Typically, it's typically when you get admitted, then the admissions office will say, okay, now calculate a financial aid package. And are these, you know, I can imagine a lot of students would worry about this. Are these kind of separate processes, you know, or will the admissions officers be able to see the kind of estimated family contribution, and does that have the potential to kind of affect your chances of admissions? Oh, absolutely. I think colleges are mindful of the programs that they have in place to support these students, and so the college's overall mission plays a role in how they're distributing financial aid and the way they view students that they're going to support through what they uncover in the FAFSA. And Sal, let me add to that. There's two important, I think, definitions here."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Oh, absolutely. I think colleges are mindful of the programs that they have in place to support these students, and so the college's overall mission plays a role in how they're distributing financial aid and the way they view students that they're going to support through what they uncover in the FAFSA. And Sal, let me add to that. There's two important, I think, definitions here. One is institutions that are need-blind and institutions that are need-sensitive, and that's an important question for students to ask as they're starting to research colleges. Typically, need-blind schools mean, you know, whether or not you're applying for aid has no impact on an admissions decision, and we will fund you to a hundred percent of your demonstrated need based on the FAFSA. Okay, so that's an important one."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's two important, I think, definitions here. One is institutions that are need-blind and institutions that are need-sensitive, and that's an important question for students to ask as they're starting to research colleges. Typically, need-blind schools mean, you know, whether or not you're applying for aid has no impact on an admissions decision, and we will fund you to a hundred percent of your demonstrated need based on the FAFSA. Okay, so that's an important one. Need-sensitive, and this is getting to your point, there are schools, and again, the great majority of schools are need-sensitive because they have limited budgets, so they might take into account at some point in the process financial aid. If, again, if we're sort of talking to really high-achieving, low-income students right now, typically they're still going to make out very well because even though the school might take into account need and the student may need as much as a full ride, if they're a really top, top student, that's still somebody they're going to support and probably pay for. If you're a student that's not as strong, that's when you might get caught in exactly what you're asking about is, oh, you need X number of dollars, you're sort of right in, you know, a range where we have a lot of choices, that may make you less attractive."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay, so that's an important one. Need-sensitive, and this is getting to your point, there are schools, and again, the great majority of schools are need-sensitive because they have limited budgets, so they might take into account at some point in the process financial aid. If, again, if we're sort of talking to really high-achieving, low-income students right now, typically they're still going to make out very well because even though the school might take into account need and the student may need as much as a full ride, if they're a really top, top student, that's still somebody they're going to support and probably pay for. If you're a student that's not as strong, that's when you might get caught in exactly what you're asking about is, oh, you need X number of dollars, you're sort of right in, you know, a range where we have a lot of choices, that may make you less attractive. So again, the story I always tell students is the better student you are, not only the more opportunities you'll have for admission, but the better financial aid packages you'll be eligible for. That's right, and is it possible it might even go the other way, where when they look at your need and they say, wow, you know, this he or she comes from a family that, you know, didn't have all the resources of many of our other applicants, that that actually could be a positive when you apply? Oh, absolutely."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you're a student that's not as strong, that's when you might get caught in exactly what you're asking about is, oh, you need X number of dollars, you're sort of right in, you know, a range where we have a lot of choices, that may make you less attractive. So again, the story I always tell students is the better student you are, not only the more opportunities you'll have for admission, but the better financial aid packages you'll be eligible for. That's right, and is it possible it might even go the other way, where when they look at your need and they say, wow, you know, this he or she comes from a family that, you know, didn't have all the resources of many of our other applicants, that that actually could be a positive when you apply? Oh, absolutely. I think the, for example, Andover operates on a need-blind admission initiative, and we're looking for students who meet the demands of our program, and when you see students who may not have had all the preparation in terms of leading up to coming to Andover, it's very compelling to find students who could manage the rigor of our program and not have had that preparation, and so we would be very attracted to them and want to provide a financial aid package that supports them at our school. Colleges operate the same way. And Philistine and obviously, you know, well-recognized high school and colleges, you're saying, are operating in a very similar way, or many do."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the FAFSA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Oh, absolutely. I think the, for example, Andover operates on a need-blind admission initiative, and we're looking for students who meet the demands of our program, and when you see students who may not have had all the preparation in terms of leading up to coming to Andover, it's very compelling to find students who could manage the rigor of our program and not have had that preparation, and so we would be very attracted to them and want to provide a financial aid package that supports them at our school. Colleges operate the same way. And Philistine and obviously, you know, well-recognized high school and colleges, you're saying, are operating in a very similar way, or many do. Exactly. Yes, they do. Right."}, {"video_title": "Obligations of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Obligations are actions that citizens are required to fulfill or they'll face punishment by law. Unlike the responsibilities of citizenship we talked about in the last video, which are voluntary actions taken by good citizens, the obligations of citizenship are not optional. So what are some of these obligations? First, citizens must obey the law. They're bound to abide by the rules that have been made by elected representatives in government. Next, citizens over the age of 18 are required to serve on juries. The constitution guarantees people who've been accused of a crime the right to a trial by a jury of their peers."}, {"video_title": "Obligations of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "First, citizens must obey the law. They're bound to abide by the rules that have been made by elected representatives in government. Next, citizens over the age of 18 are required to serve on juries. The constitution guarantees people who've been accused of a crime the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. So citizens are obligated to show up and be those peers when summoned. Although not everyone who is summoned will be selected to serve on a jury. Citizens are also obligated to pay their taxes every year by April 15th, according to state, local, and federal laws."}, {"video_title": "Obligations of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The constitution guarantees people who've been accused of a crime the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. So citizens are obligated to show up and be those peers when summoned. Although not everyone who is summoned will be selected to serve on a jury. Citizens are also obligated to pay their taxes every year by April 15th, according to state, local, and federal laws. What other obligations do citizens have? Young citizens are required to attend school as children and teenagers. Most states require students to go to school from about the age of five or six to about 16 to 18, although the exact ages and requirements differ from state to state."}, {"video_title": "Obligations of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Citizens are also obligated to pay their taxes every year by April 15th, according to state, local, and federal laws. What other obligations do citizens have? Young citizens are required to attend school as children and teenagers. Most states require students to go to school from about the age of five or six to about 16 to 18, although the exact ages and requirements differ from state to state. The last two obligations are to defend the constitution and the country when called upon. These are in the naturalization oath that new citizens must take. To defend the constitution and the laws of the United States means to be loyal to the system of government, not to try to overthrow the government or support a particular ruler rather than the system described in the constitution."}, {"video_title": "Obligations of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Most states require students to go to school from about the age of five or six to about 16 to 18, although the exact ages and requirements differ from state to state. The last two obligations are to defend the constitution and the country when called upon. These are in the naturalization oath that new citizens must take. To defend the constitution and the laws of the United States means to be loyal to the system of government, not to try to overthrow the government or support a particular ruler rather than the system described in the constitution. Citizens are also obligated to defend the country in a combat or non-combat capacity when called upon by the government. Although at this time, only men or people assigned male at birth must register for selective service between the ages of 18 and 26. So now that we've learned about the obligations of citizenship, let's do a couple of examples."}, {"video_title": "Obligations of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To defend the constitution and the laws of the United States means to be loyal to the system of government, not to try to overthrow the government or support a particular ruler rather than the system described in the constitution. Citizens are also obligated to defend the country in a combat or non-combat capacity when called upon by the government. Although at this time, only men or people assigned male at birth must register for selective service between the ages of 18 and 26. So now that we've learned about the obligations of citizenship, let's do a couple of examples. See if you can identify which obligation each person in the scenario is or is not meeting. Okay, first up, Michel is an avid bicyclist. He bikes to work every day."}, {"video_title": "Obligations of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So now that we've learned about the obligations of citizenship, let's do a couple of examples. See if you can identify which obligation each person in the scenario is or is not meeting. Okay, first up, Michel is an avid bicyclist. He bikes to work every day. He knows that he could save about five minutes off his commute if he cuts through a college campus and rides on the sidewalks. However, in New York City, it's illegal for bicyclists over the age of 13 to ride on sidewalks as bikes are vehicles. So Michel sticks to the bike paths on the street."}, {"video_title": "Obligations of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He bikes to work every day. He knows that he could save about five minutes off his commute if he cuts through a college campus and rides on the sidewalks. However, in New York City, it's illegal for bicyclists over the age of 13 to ride on sidewalks as bikes are vehicles. So Michel sticks to the bike paths on the street. All right, so pause the video here and think about which obligation Michel is following. If you said obeying the law, you're right. Okay, next one."}, {"video_title": "Obligations of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So Michel sticks to the bike paths on the street. All right, so pause the video here and think about which obligation Michel is following. If you said obeying the law, you're right. Okay, next one. Naomi is 14 and starts tricking her mom into thinking she's taking the bus, but instead goes to the library to read all day. She gets away with it for three days before her mom finds out. Which obligation was Naomi neglecting?"}, {"video_title": "Obligations of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay, next one. Naomi is 14 and starts tricking her mom into thinking she's taking the bus, but instead goes to the library to read all day. She gets away with it for three days before her mom finds out. Which obligation was Naomi neglecting? She's neglecting her obligation to attend school. Last one. To deal with the shortage of personnel in a war, the US government drafts thousands of men."}, {"video_title": "Obligations of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Which obligation was Naomi neglecting? She's neglecting her obligation to attend school. Last one. To deal with the shortage of personnel in a war, the US government drafts thousands of men. One of these men, John Stewart, reports for enlistment with the US Marine Corps at the young age of 19. Which obligation is he meeting? This one is the obligation to defend the country when called upon."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's discuss interest groups. And as you can see here, it is one of the three parts of the Iron Triangle that we first studied when we looked at the bureaucracy in the executive branch. And the whole point of the Iron Triangle is to show how these different parties can influence each other. And so just as a reminder, an interest group is any collection of folks who organize in order to advocate for something in public policy. This could be groups of corporations, it could represent an industry, it could represent a social cause. And we're going to look at some major interest groups in the United States in a few minutes, but some can be quite large and some can be quite small. But what you see from the Iron Triangle is how these parties can influence each other."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so just as a reminder, an interest group is any collection of folks who organize in order to advocate for something in public policy. This could be groups of corporations, it could represent an industry, it could represent a social cause. And we're going to look at some major interest groups in the United States in a few minutes, but some can be quite large and some can be quite small. But what you see from the Iron Triangle is how these parties can influence each other. An interest group can give electoral support to a member of Congress by getting its members to go out and vote for that member of Congress, or maybe even doing advertising for that member of Congress or giving direct financial support. In exchange, they might get friendly legislation and oversight. And that'll happen because the congressperson who got that support from the interest group might have a friendly ear to that interest group and might be open to hanging out with lobbyists from that interest group."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what you see from the Iron Triangle is how these parties can influence each other. An interest group can give electoral support to a member of Congress by getting its members to go out and vote for that member of Congress, or maybe even doing advertising for that member of Congress or giving direct financial support. In exchange, they might get friendly legislation and oversight. And that'll happen because the congressperson who got that support from the interest group might have a friendly ear to that interest group and might be open to hanging out with lobbyists from that interest group. The term lobbyist or lobbying is believed to originate in 17th century England, where people who wanted to influence members of parliament would hang out in the lobby of the parliamentary building waiting to talk to those members of parliament. And that's what essentially lobbyists do today. They try to meet with congresspeople or meet with the staff of congresspeople and try to influence the types of bills that are introduced to Congress for consideration and how various members should vote for those bills."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that'll happen because the congressperson who got that support from the interest group might have a friendly ear to that interest group and might be open to hanging out with lobbyists from that interest group. The term lobbyist or lobbying is believed to originate in 17th century England, where people who wanted to influence members of parliament would hang out in the lobby of the parliamentary building waiting to talk to those members of parliament. And that's what essentially lobbyists do today. They try to meet with congresspeople or meet with the staff of congresspeople and try to influence the types of bills that are introduced to Congress for consideration and how various members should vote for those bills. Now, bureaucracy, these are the folks who for the most part are doing the work of actually running the government. And they have influence and they can dictate what regulations are going to be, who gets various contracts. And so you can imagine that might be of interest to interest groups."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They try to meet with congresspeople or meet with the staff of congresspeople and try to influence the types of bills that are introduced to Congress for consideration and how various members should vote for those bills. Now, bureaucracy, these are the folks who for the most part are doing the work of actually running the government. And they have influence and they can dictate what regulations are going to be, who gets various contracts. And so you can imagine that might be of interest to interest groups. Now, to make tangible what some of these interest groups are you have entities like the AFL-CIO, which stands for the American Federation of Labor Congress of Industrial Organizations. And this is a meta organization of a bunch of labor unions. And as you can imagine, they're going to advocate for labor-friendly policies."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so you can imagine that might be of interest to interest groups. Now, to make tangible what some of these interest groups are you have entities like the AFL-CIO, which stands for the American Federation of Labor Congress of Industrial Organizations. And this is a meta organization of a bunch of labor unions. And as you can imagine, they're going to advocate for labor-friendly policies. It might be things that favor the manufacturing industry or that favor employees' rights to collectively negotiate with their employer. It might be advocating for trade policies which would be perceived as more friendly to the American worker. Its membership is roughly 12 1 1 1 half million people."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And as you can imagine, they're going to advocate for labor-friendly policies. It might be things that favor the manufacturing industry or that favor employees' rights to collectively negotiate with their employer. It might be advocating for trade policies which would be perceived as more friendly to the American worker. Its membership is roughly 12 1 1 1 half million people. And so just getting them out to vote can have a significant influence on elections. You have groups like the US Chamber of Commerce. And what's interesting here, this membership of over 300,000, this isn't just individuals."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Its membership is roughly 12 1 1 1 half million people. And so just getting them out to vote can have a significant influence on elections. You have groups like the US Chamber of Commerce. And what's interesting here, this membership of over 300,000, this isn't just individuals. This includes corporations. Even though the Chamber of Commerce does not have the biggest budget of the groups we're gonna look at, it is actually consistently the biggest lobbying group, spending most of this money on lobbying. And they're going to try to advocate for business-friendly policies in our government."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what's interesting here, this membership of over 300,000, this isn't just individuals. This includes corporations. Even though the Chamber of Commerce does not have the biggest budget of the groups we're gonna look at, it is actually consistently the biggest lobbying group, spending most of this money on lobbying. And they're going to try to advocate for business-friendly policies in our government. You have groups that advocate for social causes like the NAACP. They don't have a huge budget, but they are considered very, very influential when it comes to issues surrounding minority rights. You also have very influential groups like the National Rifle Association."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they're going to try to advocate for business-friendly policies in our government. You have groups that advocate for social causes like the NAACP. They don't have a huge budget, but they are considered very, very influential when it comes to issues surrounding minority rights. You also have very influential groups like the National Rifle Association. And when we compare the NRA to some of these other groups, it's interesting to think about the number of issues they concentrate their efforts on. For example, the Chamber of Commerce might be thinking about a very broad array of policy decisions that might affect commerce, that might affect businesses, while the National Rifle Association and its members, and this is a significant membership here, is likely to be much more focused on a narrower set of issues around gun rights and gun ownership. You have the American Medical Association, which despite its relatively small membership here is highly, highly influential because these 240,000 people are for the most part physicians, who many of us are very used to listening to."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You also have very influential groups like the National Rifle Association. And when we compare the NRA to some of these other groups, it's interesting to think about the number of issues they concentrate their efforts on. For example, the Chamber of Commerce might be thinking about a very broad array of policy decisions that might affect commerce, that might affect businesses, while the National Rifle Association and its members, and this is a significant membership here, is likely to be much more focused on a narrower set of issues around gun rights and gun ownership. You have the American Medical Association, which despite its relatively small membership here is highly, highly influential because these 240,000 people are for the most part physicians, who many of us are very used to listening to. You have the American Association for Retired Professionals, which has a membership of 37 million people and a budget of 1.6 billion. So these entities can be very large and very, very influential. Now as I mentioned, not all of these dollars go directly to lobbying."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have the American Medical Association, which despite its relatively small membership here is highly, highly influential because these 240,000 people are for the most part physicians, who many of us are very used to listening to. You have the American Association for Retired Professionals, which has a membership of 37 million people and a budget of 1.6 billion. So these entities can be very large and very, very influential. Now as I mentioned, not all of these dollars go directly to lobbying. They could be spending money on voter education. They could be spending money on legal funds to advocate for cases that are in their interest. They could be giving direct support to various candidates or to various parties."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now as I mentioned, not all of these dollars go directly to lobbying. They could be spending money on voter education. They could be spending money on legal funds to advocate for cases that are in their interest. They could be giving direct support to various candidates or to various parties. They could be advertising in the media for their cause. But if we think about direct lobbying, this chart right over here is quite interesting. It comes from opensecrets.org, and if you're really intrigued by understanding more of how money and influence come together in American politics, I encourage you to go to their site."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They could be giving direct support to various candidates or to various parties. They could be advertising in the media for their cause. But if we think about direct lobbying, this chart right over here is quite interesting. It comes from opensecrets.org, and if you're really intrigued by understanding more of how money and influence come together in American politics, I encourage you to go to their site. But this is a list in 2017 of the top spenders in lobbying in the United States. And as I mentioned, you see here at the top the US Chamber of Commerce at $82 million, and this isn't even the most they've ever spent in a year. There's some years where it is well over $150 million that they've spent."}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It comes from opensecrets.org, and if you're really intrigued by understanding more of how money and influence come together in American politics, I encourage you to go to their site. But this is a list in 2017 of the top spenders in lobbying in the United States. And as I mentioned, you see here at the top the US Chamber of Commerce at $82 million, and this isn't even the most they've ever spent in a year. There's some years where it is well over $150 million that they've spent. The National Association of Realtors, the Business Roundtable, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. And this money is for the most part to pay lobbyists who will meet with members of our government to directly advocate for certain policies. Now an interesting thing to think about is what positive things might be done by interest groups and what potentially negative things might be there and how equitable is this system?"}, {"video_title": "Interest groups and lobbying   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's some years where it is well over $150 million that they've spent. The National Association of Realtors, the Business Roundtable, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. And this money is for the most part to pay lobbyists who will meet with members of our government to directly advocate for certain policies. Now an interesting thing to think about is what positive things might be done by interest groups and what potentially negative things might be there and how equitable is this system? The positive things, folks could argue, are hey, they could work on voter education. Many issues that policymakers are trying to decide on are quite complex, so it might be good to have experts weighing in. But on the other hand, it might seem like money is disproportionately influential and that industries that generate a lot of money could have a disproportionate amount of influence and they could potentially use that influence to further benefit those industries to give them even more power and influence."}, {"video_title": "Sal Khan & John Dickerson introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I'm excited to be here too. And some of y'all might be wondering what are we doing together? And we are going to be talking about civics and government and American history and you're going to see a series of videos on Khan Academy tapping into John's expertise. You know, when I cover the news every single day, one of the first things I do is I go back and look at our amazing American history for two reasons. One, what has the standard been in the past? How have people behaved in the past? So we know whether what's happening now is new, crazy, interesting, in keeping with the American experience."}, {"video_title": "Sal Khan & John Dickerson introduction   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You know, when I cover the news every single day, one of the first things I do is I go back and look at our amazing American history for two reasons. One, what has the standard been in the past? How have people behaved in the past? So we know whether what's happening now is new, crazy, interesting, in keeping with the American experience. And the other thing is when you learn about history, when you look to the past, you can sometimes have a clue about what's going to happen in the future. Even though things are much different now with technology and the pace of things, it turns out human beings behave the same way in a lot of ways all throughout American history. So this is going to be a very exciting, as you could tell, series of videos."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship and voting rights of indigenous people   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The story of indigenous people in North America and their citizenship status in the United States is long and complex, and it's changing even today. The Supreme Court recently ruled in July 2020 that indigenous people in the eastern half of Oklahoma must be tried in federal or tribal courts, not state courts, because the land belongs to the Muscogee Creek Nation. So I want to be clear that what we're covering in this video is just the most basic outline of how citizenship for indigenous people has changed over time. There is so much more to learn on this topic if you're interested. Okay, with that said, let's go back to 1789, when the Constitution gave the first definition of who was and was not a U.S. citizen. Article 1 of the Constitution mentions indigenous people twice. Once to say that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes, and once to say that the population of each state, as counted for the purposes of representation, would exclude Indians not taxed."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship and voting rights of indigenous people   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There is so much more to learn on this topic if you're interested. Okay, with that said, let's go back to 1789, when the Constitution gave the first definition of who was and was not a U.S. citizen. Article 1 of the Constitution mentions indigenous people twice. Once to say that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes, and once to say that the population of each state, as counted for the purposes of representation, would exclude Indians not taxed. That indigenous people were categorized with foreign nations for the purposes of regulating trade and not counted in state populations shows us that they were not considered U.S. citizens at that time. Remember that at this time, U.S. citizenship was generally reserved for white men, women, and children, and voting rights were reserved for white men with property. The next major change in citizenship rights was the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship and voting rights of indigenous people   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Once to say that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes, and once to say that the population of each state, as counted for the purposes of representation, would exclude Indians not taxed. That indigenous people were categorized with foreign nations for the purposes of regulating trade and not counted in state populations shows us that they were not considered U.S. citizens at that time. Remember that at this time, U.S. citizenship was generally reserved for white men, women, and children, and voting rights were reserved for white men with property. The next major change in citizenship rights was the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. This ensured citizenship rights for African Americans and the children of Asian immigrants, but at the time, the courts did not interpret it to include indigenous people. Only about 8% of all indigenous people, those who were not living among a distinct nation but instead within white settlements, were taxed and therefore eligible to become citizens. Now, I should mention that not all indigenous people wanted U.S. citizenship."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship and voting rights of indigenous people   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The next major change in citizenship rights was the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. This ensured citizenship rights for African Americans and the children of Asian immigrants, but at the time, the courts did not interpret it to include indigenous people. Only about 8% of all indigenous people, those who were not living among a distinct nation but instead within white settlements, were taxed and therefore eligible to become citizens. Now, I should mention that not all indigenous people wanted U.S. citizenship. Many preferred to live separately from the United States as part of their own nations. But as the U.S. government and white settlers colonized North America rapidly in the mid to late 19th century, they ignored the rights of indigenous people as members of separate nations, forcibly relocating them to reservations or even killing them in order to obtain their land. In 1887, Congress passed the Dawes Act, which attempted to force indigenous people to give up their culture and common lands and live like Euro-Americans on individual tracts of land."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship and voting rights of indigenous people   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, I should mention that not all indigenous people wanted U.S. citizenship. Many preferred to live separately from the United States as part of their own nations. But as the U.S. government and white settlers colonized North America rapidly in the mid to late 19th century, they ignored the rights of indigenous people as members of separate nations, forcibly relocating them to reservations or even killing them in order to obtain their land. In 1887, Congress passed the Dawes Act, which attempted to force indigenous people to give up their culture and common lands and live like Euro-Americans on individual tracts of land. Any indigenous person who received a land allotment would receive U.S. citizenship. It didn't grant birthright citizenship to indigenous people or citizenship to anyone who didn't accept a land allotment. Not until 1924, in recognition of indigenous soldiers in World War I, did Congress confer citizenship on all indigenous people and guarantee birthright citizenship to them with the passage of the Snyder Act, which is also called the Indian Citizenship Act."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship and voting rights of indigenous people   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In 1887, Congress passed the Dawes Act, which attempted to force indigenous people to give up their culture and common lands and live like Euro-Americans on individual tracts of land. Any indigenous person who received a land allotment would receive U.S. citizenship. It didn't grant birthright citizenship to indigenous people or citizenship to anyone who didn't accept a land allotment. Not until 1924, in recognition of indigenous soldiers in World War I, did Congress confer citizenship on all indigenous people and guarantee birthright citizenship to them with the passage of the Snyder Act, which is also called the Indian Citizenship Act. But did having citizenship automatically confer the right to vote? If you've been paying attention in these videos, you will know that the answer is no. Many states denied voting rights to indigenous people."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship and voting rights of indigenous people   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Not until 1924, in recognition of indigenous soldiers in World War I, did Congress confer citizenship on all indigenous people and guarantee birthright citizenship to them with the passage of the Snyder Act, which is also called the Indian Citizenship Act. But did having citizenship automatically confer the right to vote? If you've been paying attention in these videos, you will know that the answer is no. Many states denied voting rights to indigenous people. They faced many of the same barriers to accessing the ballot as African Americans did before the Civil Rights Movement. Following World War II, indigenous people sued for the right to vote in states that denied them. Utah was the last state to remove formal barriers in 1962."}, {"video_title": "Citizenship and voting rights of indigenous people   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Many states denied voting rights to indigenous people. They faced many of the same barriers to accessing the ballot as African Americans did before the Civil Rights Movement. Following World War II, indigenous people sued for the right to vote in states that denied them. Utah was the last state to remove formal barriers in 1962. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided additional protections for indigenous voters by outlawing exclusionary practices that deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. So that's a very brief overview of indigenous citizenship rights and voting rights. In what ways were the citizenship rights of indigenous people similar to other minorities like African Americans?"}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In this off-white color, I have a handful of statements that you might hear folks say, especially in the United States. And what we're going to think about is, are these statements that you would typically hear from a liberal, and I'm gonna make a little key here, so I'm gonna use a light blue for liberal, a conservative, I'll use this salmon color for conservative, or a libertarian. I'll do this white color for libertarian, libertarian. And I've pre-grouped these statements into categories. They could be views on social issues or economic issues, and within each of those dimensions, they could be views that might want more social or economic control, or ones that want less social or economic control. And this isn't a perfect full sampling of all of the major issues that folks will talk about, and some of these things kind of border on social and economic, or some of them could be viewed as more control, depending how you view it, or less control, but this is a first take on things. So let's just go from the top left to the bottom right, and I encourage you to keep pausing this video and coming to your own conclusion."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I've pre-grouped these statements into categories. They could be views on social issues or economic issues, and within each of those dimensions, they could be views that might want more social or economic control, or ones that want less social or economic control. And this isn't a perfect full sampling of all of the major issues that folks will talk about, and some of these things kind of border on social and economic, or some of them could be viewed as more control, depending how you view it, or less control, but this is a first take on things. So let's just go from the top left to the bottom right, and I encourage you to keep pausing this video and coming to your own conclusion. So this first statement, affirmative action is a good thing. Would you expect that to come from someone with a liberal, conservative, or libertarian ideology? Well, this would typically come from someone with a liberal ideology."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's just go from the top left to the bottom right, and I encourage you to keep pausing this video and coming to your own conclusion. So this first statement, affirmative action is a good thing. Would you expect that to come from someone with a liberal, conservative, or libertarian ideology? Well, this would typically come from someone with a liberal ideology. Much of the ideas and policies that liberals would favor might be around curing social injustice. So they might say, hey, we don't have the proper diversity in certain walks of life right now, we don't have a level playing field, so we need to make sure that people are properly represented, and so that would be something that you would hear from liberals. And it would be something that, in general, involves more control."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, this would typically come from someone with a liberal ideology. Much of the ideas and policies that liberals would favor might be around curing social injustice. So they might say, hey, we don't have the proper diversity in certain walks of life right now, we don't have a level playing field, so we need to make sure that people are properly represented, and so that would be something that you would hear from liberals. And it would be something that, in general, involves more control. A libertarian or a conservative would say, hey, you know, we shouldn't try to do social engineering here. We should maybe make sure people have equal opportunities, but that doesn't mean that you have to have equal representation and outcome. This next statement, marriage should be between a man and a woman."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it would be something that, in general, involves more control. A libertarian or a conservative would say, hey, you know, we shouldn't try to do social engineering here. We should maybe make sure people have equal opportunities, but that doesn't mean that you have to have equal representation and outcome. This next statement, marriage should be between a man and a woman. Pause this video. Who is likely to say that? Well, that would typically come from someone with a conservative ideology."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This next statement, marriage should be between a man and a woman. Pause this video. Who is likely to say that? Well, that would typically come from someone with a conservative ideology. This would be around the theme that many folks with conservative ideologies would point to values that are worth preserving in a society that should not change, and so that would typically come from them, while a liberal or libertarian is more likely to say, hey, what goes on between two people? Well, that's their decision, and really, the government should have no say on what they do. We need tougher penalties and policing to deal with crime."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, that would typically come from someone with a conservative ideology. This would be around the theme that many folks with conservative ideologies would point to values that are worth preserving in a society that should not change, and so that would typically come from them, while a liberal or libertarian is more likely to say, hey, what goes on between two people? Well, that's their decision, and really, the government should have no say on what they do. We need tougher penalties and policing to deal with crime. Well, once again, that would be something that you would likely hear from someone with a conservative ideology. A liberal or a libertarian would be on the opposite side. They would say, hey, I'm afraid of too strict penalties, too strict policing."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We need tougher penalties and policing to deal with crime. Well, once again, that would be something that you would likely hear from someone with a conservative ideology. A liberal or a libertarian would be on the opposite side. They would say, hey, I'm afraid of too strict penalties, too strict policing. I'm afraid that the government is putting too many people in jail. So now let's go to fewer social controls. So marijuana should be legalized."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They would say, hey, I'm afraid of too strict penalties, too strict policing. I'm afraid that the government is putting too many people in jail. So now let's go to fewer social controls. So marijuana should be legalized. Pause this video. Who is more likely to say that? Well, many liberals would be likely to say that, and also libertarians."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So marijuana should be legalized. Pause this video. Who is more likely to say that? Well, many liberals would be likely to say that, and also libertarians. They would say, hey, once again, what someone does within their own privacy, why should the government have a say, while many conservatives, and this goes back to values and kind of social fiber, might say, well, no, some of these drugs, they break down people's value system. Maybe they lead to crime, and so a conservative would be more likely to be against legalizing something like marijuana. The next statement, laws restricting gun rights are unconstitutional and won't have the intended impact."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, many liberals would be likely to say that, and also libertarians. They would say, hey, once again, what someone does within their own privacy, why should the government have a say, while many conservatives, and this goes back to values and kind of social fiber, might say, well, no, some of these drugs, they break down people's value system. Maybe they lead to crime, and so a conservative would be more likely to be against legalizing something like marijuana. The next statement, laws restricting gun rights are unconstitutional and won't have the intended impact. Pause this video. Who would say that? Well, you would often hear a statement like this from someone with a conservative ideology, but also from someone with a libertarian ideology."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The next statement, laws restricting gun rights are unconstitutional and won't have the intended impact. Pause this video. Who would say that? Well, you would often hear a statement like this from someone with a conservative ideology, but also from someone with a libertarian ideology. So libertarian ideology would also say something like that, and they would both cite that people have a right to protect themselves. They might cite, hey, people have a right to use guns for things like hunting, and especially libertarians might make the argument that people need to be armed in order to protect themselves from an overly strong government, from an overly strong police state. So the next statement, same-sex couples should have full marriage rights."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, you would often hear a statement like this from someone with a conservative ideology, but also from someone with a libertarian ideology. So libertarian ideology would also say something like that, and they would both cite that people have a right to protect themselves. They might cite, hey, people have a right to use guns for things like hunting, and especially libertarians might make the argument that people need to be armed in order to protect themselves from an overly strong government, from an overly strong police state. So the next statement, same-sex couples should have full marriage rights. Who's most likely to say that? Well, this is kind of the opposite statement of this one we saw up here, and for the reasons we mentioned, this is more likely to come from someone with a liberal ideology or a libertarian, libertarian ideology, and for them, it would be about personal liberty and equal rights. And so you might already see some trends that the conservative and liberals are kind of mixed on the social when it comes to more control or less control, and don't read too much into how many there are of each."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the next statement, same-sex couples should have full marriage rights. Who's most likely to say that? Well, this is kind of the opposite statement of this one we saw up here, and for the reasons we mentioned, this is more likely to come from someone with a liberal ideology or a libertarian, libertarian ideology, and for them, it would be about personal liberty and equal rights. And so you might already see some trends that the conservative and liberals are kind of mixed on the social when it comes to more control or less control, and don't read too much into how many there are of each. This is just, you could view it as a random sampling of some issues. If I sampled more, you might have more liberal boxes up here or more conservative boxes down here, but it seems like a mix. But one clear thing that comes out is that libertarians on the social dimension are for less control."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so you might already see some trends that the conservative and liberals are kind of mixed on the social when it comes to more control or less control, and don't read too much into how many there are of each. This is just, you could view it as a random sampling of some issues. If I sampled more, you might have more liberal boxes up here or more conservative boxes down here, but it seems like a mix. But one clear thing that comes out is that libertarians on the social dimension are for less control. But what about the economic dimension? So this first statement, everyone has a right to quality healthcare. Who's more likely to say that?"}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But one clear thing that comes out is that libertarians on the social dimension are for less control. But what about the economic dimension? So this first statement, everyone has a right to quality healthcare. Who's more likely to say that? Well, that would be a liberal. Liberals, once again, they think a lot about injustice and inequality, and they want the government to be proactive about it. And so they would say, hey, the government should somehow supply universal healthcare to folks."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Who's more likely to say that? Well, that would be a liberal. Liberals, once again, they think a lot about injustice and inequality, and they want the government to be proactive about it. And so they would say, hey, the government should somehow supply universal healthcare to folks. Conservatives or libertarians, not that they don't care about injustice or inequality, but they would argue that, hey, when the government kind of intervenes in things, they have all sorts of unintended consequences and oftentimes do more harm than good. The next statement, rent control is a good thing. Well, once again, this is likely to come from a liberal, probably motivated from the idea that if rents or living costs are getting too high, that this is a way to avoid people being displaced or being priced out of their neighborhood."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so they would say, hey, the government should somehow supply universal healthcare to folks. Conservatives or libertarians, not that they don't care about injustice or inequality, but they would argue that, hey, when the government kind of intervenes in things, they have all sorts of unintended consequences and oftentimes do more harm than good. The next statement, rent control is a good thing. Well, once again, this is likely to come from a liberal, probably motivated from the idea that if rents or living costs are getting too high, that this is a way to avoid people being displaced or being priced out of their neighborhood. Now, conservatives and libertarians would argue that rent control distorts the market. It actually makes the properties that aren't on rent control overly expensive. And so it's probably doing more harm than good."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, once again, this is likely to come from a liberal, probably motivated from the idea that if rents or living costs are getting too high, that this is a way to avoid people being displaced or being priced out of their neighborhood. Now, conservatives and libertarians would argue that rent control distorts the market. It actually makes the properties that aren't on rent control overly expensive. And so it's probably doing more harm than good. The next statement, social safety nets are crucial. Once again, this is likely to come from someone with a liberal ideology. They believe that someone, that the government has a role in making sure that everyone has a basic standard of living, so programs like food stamps or welfare."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so it's probably doing more harm than good. The next statement, social safety nets are crucial. Once again, this is likely to come from someone with a liberal ideology. They believe that someone, that the government has a role in making sure that everyone has a basic standard of living, so programs like food stamps or welfare. Every worker has the right to a living wage. And living wage is sometimes, you'll hear this in the context of minimum wage discussions. Who would say that?"}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They believe that someone, that the government has a role in making sure that everyone has a basic standard of living, so programs like food stamps or welfare. Every worker has the right to a living wage. And living wage is sometimes, you'll hear this in the context of minimum wage discussions. Who would say that? Well, once again, you're likely to hear this from someone with a liberal ideology. They believe that higher minimum wages are a good thing, while conservatives or libertarians would argue that no, that distorts the market, and actually you might increase unemployment, and you might hurt the very people that you're trying to help with some of these efforts around minimum wages. And what about here when we go to less control on the economy?"}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Who would say that? Well, once again, you're likely to hear this from someone with a liberal ideology. They believe that higher minimum wages are a good thing, while conservatives or libertarians would argue that no, that distorts the market, and actually you might increase unemployment, and you might hurt the very people that you're trying to help with some of these efforts around minimum wages. And what about here when we go to less control on the economy? Government intervention in the free market will slow the economy, hurting everyone. Well, as you can imagine, this is kind of the opposite statement as these here, because these ones on the top are all the government intervening in a free economy in some way. And so this statement is more likely to come from a conservative, someone with a conservative ideology, or a libertarian."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what about here when we go to less control on the economy? Government intervention in the free market will slow the economy, hurting everyone. Well, as you can imagine, this is kind of the opposite statement as these here, because these ones on the top are all the government intervening in a free economy in some way. And so this statement is more likely to come from a conservative, someone with a conservative ideology, or a libertarian. And so when you look in the economic dimension, the distinction between conservative and liberal, at least when it comes to more control and less control, becomes more clear. On economics, liberals tend to favor more control, more government intervention, with the focus of trying to address social or economic inequality or environmental concerns. While conservatives and libertarians will often say, well, that's gonna do more harm than good, the government does have some functions, but it should really be as small as possible, and free markets are what's, in the end of the day, going to make people better off."}, {"video_title": "Ideology and social policy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so this statement is more likely to come from a conservative, someone with a conservative ideology, or a libertarian. And so when you look in the economic dimension, the distinction between conservative and liberal, at least when it comes to more control and less control, becomes more clear. On economics, liberals tend to favor more control, more government intervention, with the focus of trying to address social or economic inequality or environmental concerns. While conservatives and libertarians will often say, well, that's gonna do more harm than good, the government does have some functions, but it should really be as small as possible, and free markets are what's, in the end of the day, going to make people better off. So I will leave you there. This is a very simple model, but it helps us start to think about these issues. And so when you think about issues and you read about it in the newspaper, try to think about it in this type of a framework."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "Now as we'll see, these Articles of Confederation do not provide for any type of real central government. It really was a mutual defense union with a little bit of free trade, as we'll see in the text here. This is some of the beginning passages of the Articles of Confederation. And I encourage you to read the whole thing. It's actually quite interesting. But you immediately see that it has a very different tone than the one that we see in the US Constitution. The Constitution starts with we the people, while the Articles of Confederation starts with to all to whom these presents shall come."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "And I encourage you to read the whole thing. It's actually quite interesting. But you immediately see that it has a very different tone than the one that we see in the US Constitution. The Constitution starts with we the people, while the Articles of Confederation starts with to all to whom these presents shall come. So it's almost kind of an awkward business letter. We the undersigned delegates of the states affixed to our names send greeting. Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "The Constitution starts with we the people, while the Articles of Confederation starts with to all to whom these presents shall come. So it's almost kind of an awkward business letter. We the undersigned delegates of the states affixed to our names send greeting. Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The style of this confederacy shall be the United States of America. Each, this part is interesting, each state retains its sovereignty. So it rules over itself."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The style of this confederacy shall be the United States of America. Each, this part is interesting, each state retains its sovereignty. So it rules over itself. It's not giving up its sovereignty to some type of a union. So it retains its sovereignty, its freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. So they're really viewing themselves as independent countries that are next to each other that for the sake of fighting the Revolutionary War agreed to things like mutual defense and free trade, but they are really separate countries."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "So it rules over itself. It's not giving up its sovereignty to some type of a union. So it retains its sovereignty, its freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. So they're really viewing themselves as independent countries that are next to each other that for the sake of fighting the Revolutionary War agreed to things like mutual defense and free trade, but they are really separate countries. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defense, so this is that mutual defense idea, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attacks made upon them or any of them on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. And then it says, the better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states, and the people of each state shall free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce. So people can travel back and forth between these states, there would be free trade, but these would be viewed as different countries."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "So they're really viewing themselves as independent countries that are next to each other that for the sake of fighting the Revolutionary War agreed to things like mutual defense and free trade, but they are really separate countries. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defense, so this is that mutual defense idea, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attacks made upon them or any of them on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. And then it says, the better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states, and the people of each state shall free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce. So people can travel back and forth between these states, there would be free trade, but these would be viewed as different countries. One interesting thing that you don't hear people talk a lot about, there's even a little passage here that allows Canada to join this confederation. Canada, acceding to this confederation and adjoining in the measures of the United States shall be admitted into and entitled to all the advantages of this union, but no other colony shall be admitted into the same unless such admission be agreed to by nine states. So they're saying, hey, if Canada agrees, they are pre-agreeing to allow Canada to join this union, which Canada obviously does not join."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "So people can travel back and forth between these states, there would be free trade, but these would be viewed as different countries. One interesting thing that you don't hear people talk a lot about, there's even a little passage here that allows Canada to join this confederation. Canada, acceding to this confederation and adjoining in the measures of the United States shall be admitted into and entitled to all the advantages of this union, but no other colony shall be admitted into the same unless such admission be agreed to by nine states. So they're saying, hey, if Canada agrees, they are pre-agreeing to allow Canada to join this union, which Canada obviously does not join. But it's interesting to think that they thought about this. Now what are the weaknesses here? Well, the most obvious one, I don't have the entire Articles of Confederation here, but how does this United States of America wield its power?"}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "So they're saying, hey, if Canada agrees, they are pre-agreeing to allow Canada to join this union, which Canada obviously does not join. But it's interesting to think that they thought about this. Now what are the weaknesses here? Well, the most obvious one, I don't have the entire Articles of Confederation here, but how does this United States of America wield its power? Where does its money come from? It turns out that if it needs to generate revenue in order to take some action, it can't tax the citizens of the states. The states can only do that themselves."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the most obvious one, I don't have the entire Articles of Confederation here, but how does this United States of America wield its power? Where does its money come from? It turns out that if it needs to generate revenue in order to take some action, it can't tax the citizens of the states. The states can only do that themselves. Instead, it has to apply to the states in order to contribute to the United States of America. If you wanted to take some type of unified action, well, you would have to have delegates from the various states and meet together and decide what to do. You wouldn't have any strong leader being able to take decisive action."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "The states can only do that themselves. Instead, it has to apply to the states in order to contribute to the United States of America. If you wanted to take some type of unified action, well, you would have to have delegates from the various states and meet together and decide what to do. You wouldn't have any strong leader being able to take decisive action. And so there really wasn't a notion of a central government here. There wasn't even a notion of one country, one nation. It really was about different sovereign states."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "You wouldn't have any strong leader being able to take decisive action. And so there really wasn't a notion of a central government here. There wasn't even a notion of one country, one nation. It really was about different sovereign states. And all of this, as we'll see, will come to a head in the mid-1780s. The United States has a significant amount of debt exiting the American Revolutionary War, debt to countries like France. You also have debt on an individual level."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "It really was about different sovereign states. And all of this, as we'll see, will come to a head in the mid-1780s. The United States has a significant amount of debt exiting the American Revolutionary War, debt to countries like France. You also have debt on an individual level. Merchants owe money to European merchants and traders and lenders. And these lenders weren't interested in paper currency from these newly created states. They wanted hard currency."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "You also have debt on an individual level. Merchants owe money to European merchants and traders and lenders. And these lenders weren't interested in paper currency from these newly created states. They wanted hard currency. They wanted gold and they want silver. And so many of the merchants in the United States in turn put pressure on the people they lent money to, especially poor farmers, many of whom had been veterans in the Revolutionary War, to pay their debts in hard currency. And so you can imagine these poor farmers who were kind of the bottom of this food chain were in a pretty tough mind."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "They wanted hard currency. They wanted gold and they want silver. And so many of the merchants in the United States in turn put pressure on the people they lent money to, especially poor farmers, many of whom had been veterans in the Revolutionary War, to pay their debts in hard currency. And so you can imagine these poor farmers who were kind of the bottom of this food chain were in a pretty tough mind. They had fought in the Revolutionary War. They had risked their lives. Many of them had been injured, but they actually did not get paid for their service to a large degree."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "And so you can imagine these poor farmers who were kind of the bottom of this food chain were in a pretty tough mind. They had fought in the Revolutionary War. They had risked their lives. Many of them had been injured, but they actually did not get paid for their service to a large degree. And then now they were not able to even survive as farmers because not only were they not able to borrow new funds, but some of their existing funds they had to pay back in hard currency, which wasn't available in the United States. And so all of this tension eventually comes to a head in Western Massachusetts. This right here is a picture of Daniel Shays, who was one of these poor farmers in Western Massachusetts, who was also a veteran of the American Revolutionary War, who was not paid for his service."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "Many of them had been injured, but they actually did not get paid for their service to a large degree. And then now they were not able to even survive as farmers because not only were they not able to borrow new funds, but some of their existing funds they had to pay back in hard currency, which wasn't available in the United States. And so all of this tension eventually comes to a head in Western Massachusetts. This right here is a picture of Daniel Shays, who was one of these poor farmers in Western Massachusetts, who was also a veteran of the American Revolutionary War, who was not paid for his service. And so he eventually becomes one of the leaders of these rebellious former veterans, poor farmers, and they start taking the courthouses of Western Massachusetts, making them inoperable. These are the courthouses where people had to report to in order to talk about how they would repay their debt. Well, you can imagine this worried many of the merchants who these people owed their debt to."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "This right here is a picture of Daniel Shays, who was one of these poor farmers in Western Massachusetts, who was also a veteran of the American Revolutionary War, who was not paid for his service. And so he eventually becomes one of the leaders of these rebellious former veterans, poor farmers, and they start taking the courthouses of Western Massachusetts, making them inoperable. These are the courthouses where people had to report to in order to talk about how they would repay their debt. Well, you can imagine this worried many of the merchants who these people owed their debt to. It also worried many of the founding fathers because it took some time for the government of Massachusetts to be able to react to this. And while that was happening through mid-1786 into the beginning of 1787, this rebellion got stronger and stronger and stronger. Eventually, on January 25th, 1787, we see things coming to a head where Daniel Shays is leading his rebels to take the armory in Springfield, Massachusetts, which is in Western Massachusetts, but it's stopped by a militia."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, you can imagine this worried many of the merchants who these people owed their debt to. It also worried many of the founding fathers because it took some time for the government of Massachusetts to be able to react to this. And while that was happening through mid-1786 into the beginning of 1787, this rebellion got stronger and stronger and stronger. Eventually, on January 25th, 1787, we see things coming to a head where Daniel Shays is leading his rebels to take the armory in Springfield, Massachusetts, which is in Western Massachusetts, but it's stopped by a militia. This is a militia that's paid for by merchants in the area who probably want their debts paid or just wanted functioning courthouses or did not want all of these rioting farmers and former veterans. And so this rebellion is put down, but it shows the weakness inherent in the Articles of Confederation. This rebellion starts having the potential to spread well beyond Massachusetts, but there was not a coordinated action."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "Eventually, on January 25th, 1787, we see things coming to a head where Daniel Shays is leading his rebels to take the armory in Springfield, Massachusetts, which is in Western Massachusetts, but it's stopped by a militia. This is a militia that's paid for by merchants in the area who probably want their debts paid or just wanted functioning courthouses or did not want all of these rioting farmers and former veterans. And so this rebellion is put down, but it shows the weakness inherent in the Articles of Confederation. This rebellion starts having the potential to spread well beyond Massachusetts, but there was not a coordinated action. In fact, it took many months to even be able to field a militia against the rebellion. It also highlighted the weakness of not having one central government that can take decisive action, also one central government that could generate its own revenue through taxing the citizens of all of the states and using that for things like a military or being able to negotiate debts with foreign countries. And so Shays' Rebellion is cited by many historians as one of the main catalysts after it was put down for having the Constitutional Convention in mid-1787 to rethink the Articles of Confederation."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "This rebellion starts having the potential to spread well beyond Massachusetts, but there was not a coordinated action. In fact, it took many months to even be able to field a militia against the rebellion. It also highlighted the weakness of not having one central government that can take decisive action, also one central government that could generate its own revenue through taxing the citizens of all of the states and using that for things like a military or being able to negotiate debts with foreign countries. And so Shays' Rebellion is cited by many historians as one of the main catalysts after it was put down for having the Constitutional Convention in mid-1787 to rethink the Articles of Confederation. Now, as we talked about in other videos, many people went to this convention thinking, we're not just gonna edit the Articles of Confederation. We need to create a stronger central government. We need a federalist system where, yes, the states can have rights, but we also need a central government."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "And so Shays' Rebellion is cited by many historians as one of the main catalysts after it was put down for having the Constitutional Convention in mid-1787 to rethink the Articles of Confederation. Now, as we talked about in other videos, many people went to this convention thinking, we're not just gonna edit the Articles of Confederation. We need to create a stronger central government. We need a federalist system where, yes, the states can have rights, but we also need a central government. We need a strong leader at the head of that central government. And so they do draft what is now the Constitution at this convention. Then after the convention, they sell this new Constitution, because remember, it has to be ratified by the states through the Federalist Papers, which we also talk about in other videos."}, {"video_title": "The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion.mp3", "Sentence": "We need a federalist system where, yes, the states can have rights, but we also need a central government. We need a strong leader at the head of that central government. And so they do draft what is now the Constitution at this convention. Then after the convention, they sell this new Constitution, because remember, it has to be ratified by the states through the Federalist Papers, which we also talk about in other videos. Hamilton organized it, but James Madison and John Jay, also significant contributors. And eventually, the Articles of Confederation does get replaced. The Constitution is ratified, and it becomes effective on March 4th, 1789."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One of four amendments in the Bill of Rights that concerns the rights of the accused, the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants in criminal cases the right to a speedy and public trial. To learn more about the Sixth Amendment, I sought out the help of two experts. Stephanos Bibas is a United States Circuit Judge for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He's also a leading scholar of criminal procedure. Jeffrey Fischer is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. So Judge Bibas, in the case of the Bill of Rights, the framers were trying to prevent particular abuses of the government. So what was the historical background that led them to want to protect these rights in particular?"}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's also a leading scholar of criminal procedure. Jeffrey Fischer is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. So Judge Bibas, in the case of the Bill of Rights, the framers were trying to prevent particular abuses of the government. So what was the historical background that led them to want to protect these rights in particular? In England in the late 17th and early 18th century, there was a series of treason trials, other political trials, and the king had done some things that bypassed the usual mode of trial in criminal cases. The Anglo-American system is known as the common law. It involves live testimony in open court before a jury of your peers."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what was the historical background that led them to want to protect these rights in particular? In England in the late 17th and early 18th century, there was a series of treason trials, other political trials, and the king had done some things that bypassed the usual mode of trial in criminal cases. The Anglo-American system is known as the common law. It involves live testimony in open court before a jury of your peers. And the jury ultimately decides, did you do it? Were you blameworthy? Do you deserve the punishment?"}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It involves live testimony in open court before a jury of your peers. And the jury ultimately decides, did you do it? Were you blameworthy? Do you deserve the punishment? Well, the crown had railroaded some of its political opponents, people like Sir Walter Raleigh, people accused in the Popish plots during the strife between Catholics and Protestants. And some of these convictions were later understood to have been wrongful ones. And so the colonists in England and then in America insisted on protecting against various ways of diminishing or abridging the trial that would be speedy, that would be public, that would be before a jury, that would have an evenly matched prosecution and defense and would have an opportunity to look the witness in the eye and confront him the way it was always done in England as opposed to on continental Europe."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Do you deserve the punishment? Well, the crown had railroaded some of its political opponents, people like Sir Walter Raleigh, people accused in the Popish plots during the strife between Catholics and Protestants. And some of these convictions were later understood to have been wrongful ones. And so the colonists in England and then in America insisted on protecting against various ways of diminishing or abridging the trial that would be speedy, that would be public, that would be before a jury, that would have an evenly matched prosecution and defense and would have an opportunity to look the witness in the eye and confront him the way it was always done in England as opposed to on continental Europe. There is a varied history, primarily in England, of certain periods of time where people were prosecuted in ways that the founders deemed fundamentally unfair. Probably the most notorious example was the Star Chamber. That was a moniker given to a king run tribunal decades before the founding where people were picked up and arrested and then sentenced to criminal punishment and sometimes to death without ever having an opportunity to challenge the charges against them and sometimes not even knowing what the charges were against them."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the colonists in England and then in America insisted on protecting against various ways of diminishing or abridging the trial that would be speedy, that would be public, that would be before a jury, that would have an evenly matched prosecution and defense and would have an opportunity to look the witness in the eye and confront him the way it was always done in England as opposed to on continental Europe. There is a varied history, primarily in England, of certain periods of time where people were prosecuted in ways that the founders deemed fundamentally unfair. Probably the most notorious example was the Star Chamber. That was a moniker given to a king run tribunal decades before the founding where people were picked up and arrested and then sentenced to criminal punishment and sometimes to death without ever having an opportunity to challenge the charges against them and sometimes not even knowing what the charges were against them. And so that kind of a travesty of justice and abuse of power was probably the foremost thing in the framers' minds. This was partly for the benefit of the defendant or the accused, it also was very importantly about protecting the citizen's right to control criminal justice, that it wasn't the king who would do this and the king couldn't just let his royal officers off. So it's very important to look at the Declaration of Independence."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That was a moniker given to a king run tribunal decades before the founding where people were picked up and arrested and then sentenced to criminal punishment and sometimes to death without ever having an opportunity to challenge the charges against them and sometimes not even knowing what the charges were against them. And so that kind of a travesty of justice and abuse of power was probably the foremost thing in the framers' minds. This was partly for the benefit of the defendant or the accused, it also was very importantly about protecting the citizen's right to control criminal justice, that it wasn't the king who would do this and the king couldn't just let his royal officers off. So it's very important to look at the Declaration of Independence. A bunch of the complaints in the declaration are complaints that the king is bypassing these usual modes, that he's protecting his soldiers by a mock trial from punishment for murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of the states, that he's depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury and that he has made the judges subject to his manipulation and pleasure because they don't have stable salaries. So the colonists were very suspicious of the king's manipulation of criminal justice. So how does the Sixth Amendment inform how the US legal system works today?"}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it's very important to look at the Declaration of Independence. A bunch of the complaints in the declaration are complaints that the king is bypassing these usual modes, that he's protecting his soldiers by a mock trial from punishment for murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of the states, that he's depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury and that he has made the judges subject to his manipulation and pleasure because they don't have stable salaries. So the colonists were very suspicious of the king's manipulation of criminal justice. So how does the Sixth Amendment inform how the US legal system works today? Well, the first important thing to understand is that when the Sixth Amendment was drafted, just like all the other first 10 amendments, they applied primarily only to the federal government, not to state governments. But in the 60s and 70s, the Supreme Court applied all of these rights one by one to the states. So now, because the rights apply to both the federal government and to state governments, the Sixth Amendment applies every single time somebody is charged with a crime."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So how does the Sixth Amendment inform how the US legal system works today? Well, the first important thing to understand is that when the Sixth Amendment was drafted, just like all the other first 10 amendments, they applied primarily only to the federal government, not to state governments. But in the 60s and 70s, the Supreme Court applied all of these rights one by one to the states. So now, because the rights apply to both the federal government and to state governments, the Sixth Amendment applies every single time somebody is charged with a crime. And so that starts with knowing what you're being charged with, whether it's by what's known as a grand jury indictment or some other method of accusing somebody of committing a crime. And it continues on with the right to an attorney to represent the accused and goes all the way through the decision-making process with how the jury decides whether to convict or not. Well, this is fascinating, but there are a couple of things that I see in the Sixth Amendment that seem like they might be a little difficult to define, particularly the idea of a speedy trial."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So now, because the rights apply to both the federal government and to state governments, the Sixth Amendment applies every single time somebody is charged with a crime. And so that starts with knowing what you're being charged with, whether it's by what's known as a grand jury indictment or some other method of accusing somebody of committing a crime. And it continues on with the right to an attorney to represent the accused and goes all the way through the decision-making process with how the jury decides whether to convict or not. Well, this is fascinating, but there are a couple of things that I see in the Sixth Amendment that seem like they might be a little difficult to define, particularly the idea of a speedy trial. So what actually counts as speedy? The speedy trial component is not well-defined. The Supreme Court has ultimately said, well, we're gonna balance a bunch of factors."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, this is fascinating, but there are a couple of things that I see in the Sixth Amendment that seem like they might be a little difficult to define, particularly the idea of a speedy trial. So what actually counts as speedy? The speedy trial component is not well-defined. The Supreme Court has ultimately said, well, we're gonna balance a bunch of factors. How long is the delay? What's the reason for the delay? Has the defendant shown any prejudice from the delay?"}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Supreme Court has ultimately said, well, we're gonna balance a bunch of factors. How long is the delay? What's the reason for the delay? Has the defendant shown any prejudice from the delay? How long did it take after the defendant requested the speedy trial? And very rarely does the court actually throw out a case based on that. What happens more often is that the defendant makes a request and then judges really try to push the case along to be faster."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Has the defendant shown any prejudice from the delay? How long did it take after the defendant requested the speedy trial? And very rarely does the court actually throw out a case based on that. What happens more often is that the defendant makes a request and then judges really try to push the case along to be faster. So the court has turned it into really focusing on the defendant's interest in something fast. And that matters a lot when a defendant doesn't make bail and is being held in jail pending trial. So those cases will go to trial in a matter of months."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What happens more often is that the defendant makes a request and then judges really try to push the case along to be faster. So the court has turned it into really focusing on the defendant's interest in something fast. And that matters a lot when a defendant doesn't make bail and is being held in jail pending trial. So those cases will go to trial in a matter of months. A case where someone is out on bail can easily take a year or two before it ultimately proceeds to trial. What's speedy or what's reasonable in 1791 might not be speedy or reasonable in 2017. So what the courts have said with respect to speedy is there's not a bright line rule, say one year, five years, whatever it might be, that somebody has to be brought to trial after being charged."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So those cases will go to trial in a matter of months. A case where someone is out on bail can easily take a year or two before it ultimately proceeds to trial. What's speedy or what's reasonable in 1791 might not be speedy or reasonable in 2017. So what the courts have said with respect to speedy is there's not a bright line rule, say one year, five years, whatever it might be, that somebody has to be brought to trial after being charged. Rather what the court does is it considers how diligently the prosecution has tried to pursue the case in light of other factors, such as the complexity of the case, whether the defendant himself wants the case to proceed to trial soon or whether the defendant himself has agreed to certain delays or said that he doesn't mind them. And whether there's prejudice that has occurred, which is a legal way of saying whether somebody's been harmed or injured by the delay. Say for example, a key witness has now died or fled the jurisdiction."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what the courts have said with respect to speedy is there's not a bright line rule, say one year, five years, whatever it might be, that somebody has to be brought to trial after being charged. Rather what the court does is it considers how diligently the prosecution has tried to pursue the case in light of other factors, such as the complexity of the case, whether the defendant himself wants the case to proceed to trial soon or whether the defendant himself has agreed to certain delays or said that he doesn't mind them. And whether there's prejudice that has occurred, which is a legal way of saying whether somebody's been harmed or injured by the delay. Say for example, a key witness has now died or fled the jurisdiction. So it's flexible words like speedy in essence translate some measure of discretion and flexibility to the courts. Why is our legal process so much slower than it was in the 18th century? Okay, so that connects up to the second set of rights we've constructed around what makes something a public trial."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Say for example, a key witness has now died or fled the jurisdiction. So it's flexible words like speedy in essence translate some measure of discretion and flexibility to the courts. Why is our legal process so much slower than it was in the 18th century? Okay, so that connects up to the second set of rights we've constructed around what makes something a public trial. And one of the main things there is the jury right. Juries in the 18th century, we didn't have a jury selection process. The first 12 people who didn't know the plaintiff or the defendant or the victim or whoever it was, would be impaneled and they would serve all day and they'd hear all the cases that came that day."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay, so that connects up to the second set of rights we've constructed around what makes something a public trial. And one of the main things there is the jury right. Juries in the 18th century, we didn't have a jury selection process. The first 12 people who didn't know the plaintiff or the defendant or the victim or whoever it was, would be impaneled and they would serve all day and they'd hear all the cases that came that day. And you didn't have lawyers involved in most of these cases. Usually it was the victim against the defendant himself or herself. No lawyer speaking for either side."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The first 12 people who didn't know the plaintiff or the defendant or the victim or whoever it was, would be impaneled and they would serve all day and they'd hear all the cases that came that day. And you didn't have lawyers involved in most of these cases. Usually it was the victim against the defendant himself or herself. No lawyer speaking for either side. That was the norm. The defendant had a right to hire a lawyer but usually couldn't afford it and didn't. And there weren't rules of evidence."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "No lawyer speaking for either side. That was the norm. The defendant had a right to hire a lawyer but usually couldn't afford it and didn't. And there weren't rules of evidence. There weren't complicated, motions, there weren't technical jury instructions. So the trials themselves took, as I said, an hour, two hours. Pretrial proceedings did not involve lots of legal motions because there were no lawyers to run them."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there weren't rules of evidence. There weren't complicated, motions, there weren't technical jury instructions. So the trials themselves took, as I said, an hour, two hours. Pretrial proceedings did not involve lots of legal motions because there were no lawyers to run them. The judges themselves often didn't have legal training. There were no law schools in America. So when you have a system like that, it's not that cumbersome."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Pretrial proceedings did not involve lots of legal motions because there were no lawyers to run them. The judges themselves often didn't have legal training. There were no law schools in America. So when you have a system like that, it's not that cumbersome. There's very little incentive to bypass it. And you don't have professional lawyers who are looking to get this case done with and get onto the next trial. Or who have seen enough cases that they can bargain back and forth and strike a bargain for this case that's about where the previous cases came out."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So when you have a system like that, it's not that cumbersome. There's very little incentive to bypass it. And you don't have professional lawyers who are looking to get this case done with and get onto the next trial. Or who have seen enough cases that they can bargain back and forth and strike a bargain for this case that's about where the previous cases came out. So you didn't have an incentive for plea bargaining. It wasn't slow enough. You didn't have the experts who it would take to run plea bargaining."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or who have seen enough cases that they can bargain back and forth and strike a bargain for this case that's about where the previous cases came out. So you didn't have an incentive for plea bargaining. It wasn't slow enough. You didn't have the experts who it would take to run plea bargaining. And you didn't have the lack of investment in your own case that makes plea bargaining possible or the technical rules. So these cases actually all did take a while to get to the next trial. So these cases actually all did go to juries."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You didn't have the experts who it would take to run plea bargaining. And you didn't have the lack of investment in your own case that makes plea bargaining possible or the technical rules. So these cases actually all did take a while to get to the next trial. So these cases actually all did go to juries. And the expectation was they all would go to juries. And the jury right wasn't, it wasn't just a right of a defendant. This happened in every case because the public had a right to do justice itself as well as seeing justice done."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So these cases actually all did go to juries. And the expectation was they all would go to juries. And the jury right wasn't, it wasn't just a right of a defendant. This happened in every case because the public had a right to do justice itself as well as seeing justice done. Oh, I have so many questions about this. So for one thing, do you think our current system is an improvement on this older system of juries and not so much plea bargaining? And also, why is there so much plea bargaining today?"}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This happened in every case because the public had a right to do justice itself as well as seeing justice done. Oh, I have so many questions about this. So for one thing, do you think our current system is an improvement on this older system of juries and not so much plea bargaining? And also, why is there so much plea bargaining today? At the time of the founding, there were no deals to be made short of a full trial. That's a huge contrast with today where over 90% of criminal cases in this country are not resolved by trial, but rather by what's called a plea bargain, which is a defendant coming in and saying, look, I will plead guilty to a lesser offense or to the same offense you're charging, but with a guarantee of lesser punishment as long as you don't require me to go through a full trial. And so the idea is, is that because the system has grown so large and there are so many cases that it's a relief to the prosecution and the court system not to have to have a trial in every case."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And also, why is there so much plea bargaining today? At the time of the founding, there were no deals to be made short of a full trial. That's a huge contrast with today where over 90% of criminal cases in this country are not resolved by trial, but rather by what's called a plea bargain, which is a defendant coming in and saying, look, I will plead guilty to a lesser offense or to the same offense you're charging, but with a guarantee of lesser punishment as long as you don't require me to go through a full trial. And so the idea is, is that because the system has grown so large and there are so many cases that it's a relief to the prosecution and the court system not to have to have a trial in every case. And the benefit to the defendant is that he gets a slightly better deal or is able to plea to a lesser crime. Over the course of the 19th century, prosecutors are really taking over most of these cases. It goes from a few percent to the lion's share of cases."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the idea is, is that because the system has grown so large and there are so many cases that it's a relief to the prosecution and the court system not to have to have a trial in every case. And the benefit to the defendant is that he gets a slightly better deal or is able to plea to a lesser crime. Over the course of the 19th century, prosecutors are really taking over most of these cases. It goes from a few percent to the lion's share of cases. And then defense lawyers get hired more and more to counteract that. Well, once you have prosecutors and defense lawyers on both sides, and the Sixth Amendment guarantees you the right to hire a defense lawyer, that's how it's understood in the 18th and 19th centuries. The prosecutors and defense lawyers develop rules of evidence, and they develop procedures and jury instructions, and they argue motions."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It goes from a few percent to the lion's share of cases. And then defense lawyers get hired more and more to counteract that. Well, once you have prosecutors and defense lawyers on both sides, and the Sixth Amendment guarantees you the right to hire a defense lawyer, that's how it's understood in the 18th and 19th centuries. The prosecutors and defense lawyers develop rules of evidence, and they develop procedures and jury instructions, and they argue motions. And so they get more active and the judge gets more passive or reactive. So the judge isn't pushing the case along as much and the prosecutor and defense lawyer are slowing it down. Now that seems like it makes it fairer, but once it gets to a certain point of being slow, the prosecutors wanna get rid of the cases."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The prosecutors and defense lawyers develop rules of evidence, and they develop procedures and jury instructions, and they argue motions. And so they get more active and the judge gets more passive or reactive. So the judge isn't pushing the case along as much and the prosecutor and defense lawyer are slowing it down. Now that seems like it makes it fairer, but once it gets to a certain point of being slow, the prosecutors wanna get rid of the cases. They have too many of them. The judges, they have a bunch of civil cases they need to get rid of. And so the prosecutors and the judges and the defense lawyers all get together and find ways to bargain the case away rather than spending now it's days on each case for trial."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now that seems like it makes it fairer, but once it gets to a certain point of being slow, the prosecutors wanna get rid of the cases. They have too many of them. The judges, they have a bunch of civil cases they need to get rid of. And so the prosecutors and the judges and the defense lawyers all get together and find ways to bargain the case away rather than spending now it's days on each case for trial. So from their point of view, it makes sense. They have a faster system and everyone goes home happy and the prosecutor can pursue more cases and the defendant gets a lighter deal, but the prosecution makes sure there's some conviction and sentence. But from the point of view of the public, the public doesn't see justice done and the public doesn't trust these plea bargains."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the prosecutors and the judges and the defense lawyers all get together and find ways to bargain the case away rather than spending now it's days on each case for trial. So from their point of view, it makes sense. They have a faster system and everyone goes home happy and the prosecutor can pursue more cases and the defendant gets a lighter deal, but the prosecution makes sure there's some conviction and sentence. But from the point of view of the public, the public doesn't see justice done and the public doesn't trust these plea bargains. But at the end of the day, what the defense lawyer is mostly doing is not making sure there's a speedy and public trial, but bargaining the 95% of cases away before there's a trial. What happens if the defendant can't afford a legal counsel? The history of the right to counsel is actually one of the more interesting components of the Sixth Amendment because many of the components have deep roots in the history of England."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But from the point of view of the public, the public doesn't see justice done and the public doesn't trust these plea bargains. But at the end of the day, what the defense lawyer is mostly doing is not making sure there's a speedy and public trial, but bargaining the 95% of cases away before there's a trial. What happens if the defendant can't afford a legal counsel? The history of the right to counsel is actually one of the more interesting components of the Sixth Amendment because many of the components have deep roots in the history of England. And so were rights that Englishmen enjoyed for many, many years before they were brought over to the colonies and became part of our constitution of the United States. The right to counsel is a little bit different in that respect. Criminal defendants in England and other countries around the time of our founding often did not have a right to counsel of any kind, whether they could pay for it or not."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The history of the right to counsel is actually one of the more interesting components of the Sixth Amendment because many of the components have deep roots in the history of England. And so were rights that Englishmen enjoyed for many, many years before they were brought over to the colonies and became part of our constitution of the United States. The right to counsel is a little bit different in that respect. Criminal defendants in England and other countries around the time of our founding often did not have a right to counsel of any kind, whether they could pay for it or not. And so this was a bit of an innovation on the part of the framers, recognizing that all the other rights they were identifying to defend yourself in court might not amount to much if you didn't have expert assistance or at least the right to obtain expert assistance. So you've described a lot of changes to how our legal system works over the years. What do you think would have surprised the framers most about how our legal system works today?"}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Criminal defendants in England and other countries around the time of our founding often did not have a right to counsel of any kind, whether they could pay for it or not. And so this was a bit of an innovation on the part of the framers, recognizing that all the other rights they were identifying to defend yourself in court might not amount to much if you didn't have expert assistance or at least the right to obtain expert assistance. So you've described a lot of changes to how our legal system works over the years. What do you think would have surprised the framers most about how our legal system works today? I think they would have been shocked that a system that was meant to slow down and check governmental power and protect overreaching and protect the people's role has been so subverted that the people are involved in a few percent of cases. They designed a system that's slower and less efficient by design than the criminal justice system of continental Europe because they were worried about the king and the crown pushing around citizens and abusing their power. They wanted grand juries to authorize every criminal charge."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What do you think would have surprised the framers most about how our legal system works today? I think they would have been shocked that a system that was meant to slow down and check governmental power and protect overreaching and protect the people's role has been so subverted that the people are involved in a few percent of cases. They designed a system that's slower and less efficient by design than the criminal justice system of continental Europe because they were worried about the king and the crown pushing around citizens and abusing their power. They wanted grand juries to authorize every criminal charge. Well, we've largely gotten around that in most cases. They wanted petty juries to ensure that every prosecutor's charge was justified and that the legislature's criminal laws weren't being applied too broadly. And again, prosecutors now have so many threats and tools and sentences that they can make almost everybody give up their jury trial rights."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They wanted grand juries to authorize every criminal charge. Well, we've largely gotten around that in most cases. They wanted petty juries to ensure that every prosecutor's charge was justified and that the legislature's criminal laws weren't being applied too broadly. And again, prosecutors now have so many threats and tools and sentences that they can make almost everybody give up their jury trial rights. But the framers also weren't dealing with the volume of cases we're talking about and they weren't focused primarily on the violent crimes. The federal crimes they were dealing with were seditious libel, criticizing the government, violations of the revenue laws. So it's also fair to point out that they did not expect that these rights were mainly gonna be limitations that benefited people in rape and murder cases."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And again, prosecutors now have so many threats and tools and sentences that they can make almost everybody give up their jury trial rights. But the framers also weren't dealing with the volume of cases we're talking about and they weren't focused primarily on the violent crimes. The federal crimes they were dealing with were seditious libel, criticizing the government, violations of the revenue laws. So it's also fair to point out that they did not expect that these rights were mainly gonna be limitations that benefited people in rape and murder cases. A lot of these protections are mainly designed to make sure that the innocent people get vindicated against unjust charges. And they might be a little bit surprised that almost all of the litigation is by people who may be factually guilty. The next thing that would have surprised the framers a great deal, I think, is the role of the jury today."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it's also fair to point out that they did not expect that these rights were mainly gonna be limitations that benefited people in rape and murder cases. A lot of these protections are mainly designed to make sure that the innocent people get vindicated against unjust charges. And they might be a little bit surprised that almost all of the litigation is by people who may be factually guilty. The next thing that would have surprised the framers a great deal, I think, is the role of the jury today. The jury trial right mentioned in the Sixth Amendment is actually one of the only things mentioned twice in the Constitution. The right to a jury trial is actually mentioned in the body of the Constitution itself in Article IV. And then it's mentioned again in the Sixth Amendment."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The next thing that would have surprised the framers a great deal, I think, is the role of the jury today. The jury trial right mentioned in the Sixth Amendment is actually one of the only things mentioned twice in the Constitution. The right to a jury trial is actually mentioned in the body of the Constitution itself in Article IV. And then it's mentioned again in the Sixth Amendment. And the reason why is because the jury were truly the people's check on the court system and in particular on the prosecutorial power. So serving on a jury to the framers was an honor. It was an act of deep political participation and meaning in a way that we joke about jury service today as being something of a nuisance."}, {"video_title": "The Sixth Amendment   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then it's mentioned again in the Sixth Amendment. And the reason why is because the jury were truly the people's check on the court system and in particular on the prosecutorial power. So serving on a jury to the framers was an honor. It was an act of deep political participation and meaning in a way that we joke about jury service today as being something of a nuisance. They viewed it as almost as important as voting for the president on election day. By guaranteeing speedy public trials by jury and due process of law, the Sixth Amendment ensures that citizens, not the government, control criminal justice. But today, as Professor Fisher and Judge Bevis note, the framers might be surprised to learn that due to the rise of plea bargaining, only a small percentage of cases go to trial by jury, circumventing this process."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now we've already talked about how either chamber of Congress can introduce general legislation, and if it gets approved by one chamber, it has to be voted on and approved by the other chamber. But the House of Representatives has some specific constitutional powers. So for example, impeachment proceedings would start in the House of Representatives. In other videos, we have talked about impeachment is not the removal from office of say, the president, it is just a formal indictment. Now, if the House of Representatives is able to impeach someone, say the president, then it would go to the Senate to try the impeachment, to decide whether to actually convict the person. Now we've also talked about the House being the place where tax and revenue bills would initiate. So if we're talking about tax or revenue, these bills would start in the House of Representatives."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In other videos, we have talked about impeachment is not the removal from office of say, the president, it is just a formal indictment. Now, if the House of Representatives is able to impeach someone, say the president, then it would go to the Senate to try the impeachment, to decide whether to actually convict the person. Now we've also talked about the House being the place where tax and revenue bills would initiate. So if we're talking about tax or revenue, these bills would start in the House of Representatives. The other areas where the Senate has more influence by the Constitution are in ratifying treaties, and this is really one of the significant levers where the Senate has more influence on foreign policy, and also confirmation of presidential appointments, either into the executive branch, if we're talking about the cabinet, or judicial appointments, the federal court system, including the US Supreme Court. But beyond these constitutional powers, there's differences in how these different houses are run. And what we'll see is these processes result in the Senate being more deliberative."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if we're talking about tax or revenue, these bills would start in the House of Representatives. The other areas where the Senate has more influence by the Constitution are in ratifying treaties, and this is really one of the significant levers where the Senate has more influence on foreign policy, and also confirmation of presidential appointments, either into the executive branch, if we're talking about the cabinet, or judicial appointments, the federal court system, including the US Supreme Court. But beyond these constitutional powers, there's differences in how these different houses are run. And what we'll see is these processes result in the Senate being more deliberative. In the video on filibuster, we talk about how hard it is to end a debate in the Senate, while in the House, the power is more centralized amongst not just the majority party, but amongst the leadership in that majority party. We're talking about folks like the Speaker of the House and the inner circle of the Speaker of the House. And we'll see why this is in a second."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what we'll see is these processes result in the Senate being more deliberative. In the video on filibuster, we talk about how hard it is to end a debate in the Senate, while in the House, the power is more centralized amongst not just the majority party, but amongst the leadership in that majority party. We're talking about folks like the Speaker of the House and the inner circle of the Speaker of the House. And we'll see why this is in a second. And to appreciate this centralized power, and you could argue a more efficient versus deliberative process in the House of Representatives, you just have to remember that if we have a bill coming to the House, it will first go to the Speaker who decides which committee it goes to. So let's say it goes to some type of a committee right over here. Now, just as in the Senate, this committee can conduct hearings, they can have some debate, and the leadership of the committee can decide to bring it to the House floor."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And we'll see why this is in a second. And to appreciate this centralized power, and you could argue a more efficient versus deliberative process in the House of Representatives, you just have to remember that if we have a bill coming to the House, it will first go to the Speaker who decides which committee it goes to. So let's say it goes to some type of a committee right over here. Now, just as in the Senate, this committee can conduct hearings, they can have some debate, and the leadership of the committee can decide to bring it to the House floor. But in reality, what happens is, is that the Rules Committee gets involved. And as we've talked about in previous videos, the Rules Committee in the House has a significant amount of power. They can decide, assuming a bill gets through committee, they can decide to what degree it is debated on the House floor."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, just as in the Senate, this committee can conduct hearings, they can have some debate, and the leadership of the committee can decide to bring it to the House floor. But in reality, what happens is, is that the Rules Committee gets involved. And as we've talked about in previous videos, the Rules Committee in the House has a significant amount of power. They can decide, assuming a bill gets through committee, they can decide to what degree it is debated on the House floor. They can even decide on the rules of debating. They could decide on the House floor, is it going to be debated as the House, or is it going to be debated as the committee of the whole? Which happens in the House chamber, but in this situation, the House discusses it as a very, very, very large committee."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They can decide, assuming a bill gets through committee, they can decide to what degree it is debated on the House floor. They can even decide on the rules of debating. They could decide on the House floor, is it going to be debated as the House, or is it going to be debated as the committee of the whole? Which happens in the House chamber, but in this situation, the House discusses it as a very, very, very large committee. And it's usually done for very important legislation or even sometimes complex legislation where they want to pass it in a more efficient way. And so the existence of a very powerful Rules Committee, you have a Rules Committee in the Senate, but they really don't have much power. But in the House of Representatives, some would argue that they are the most important or most powerful committee because they decide how and when things get debated."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Which happens in the House chamber, but in this situation, the House discusses it as a very, very, very large committee. And it's usually done for very important legislation or even sometimes complex legislation where they want to pass it in a more efficient way. And so the existence of a very powerful Rules Committee, you have a Rules Committee in the Senate, but they really don't have much power. But in the House of Representatives, some would argue that they are the most important or most powerful committee because they decide how and when things get debated. They even decide if there is a debate or their amendments can even be added to bills. Remember, in our discussion of the Senate, once something even goes to the Senate floor, it's still open to filibuster and you still need those 60 votes for a cloture on a bill. That is not the case in the House of Representatives."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But in the House of Representatives, some would argue that they are the most important or most powerful committee because they decide how and when things get debated. They even decide if there is a debate or their amendments can even be added to bills. Remember, in our discussion of the Senate, once something even goes to the Senate floor, it's still open to filibuster and you still need those 60 votes for a cloture on a bill. That is not the case in the House of Representatives. Now, in theory, there are some mechanisms where someone could bypass some of this. So for example, in a committee, in the House of Representatives, just as in the Senate, the leadership of a committee could decide to not bring something to vote. They could just put a bill into limbo, not debate it."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That is not the case in the House of Representatives. Now, in theory, there are some mechanisms where someone could bypass some of this. So for example, in a committee, in the House of Representatives, just as in the Senate, the leadership of a committee could decide to not bring something to vote. They could just put a bill into limbo, not debate it. But if someone really wants it to come to the House floor, they could use something called a discharge petition. Discharge petition. But in order to get a discharge petition, in order to make it successful so that that bill actually goes to the House floor, even if the committee chairman doesn't want it to go there, it has to get a majority vote of representatives."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They could just put a bill into limbo, not debate it. But if someone really wants it to come to the House floor, they could use something called a discharge petition. Discharge petition. But in order to get a discharge petition, in order to make it successful so that that bill actually goes to the House floor, even if the committee chairman doesn't want it to go there, it has to get a majority vote of representatives. And so you could imagine, if it's someone from a minority party trying to have a discharge petition, it would be very difficult because how are they going to get 51% of the 435 representatives to vote for it? And so that's why, in practice, this is actually not that typical. So the big picture here, beyond the constitutional powers that are given to the House or the Senate, in general, the House of Representatives is much more hierarchical."}, {"video_title": "The House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But in order to get a discharge petition, in order to make it successful so that that bill actually goes to the House floor, even if the committee chairman doesn't want it to go there, it has to get a majority vote of representatives. And so you could imagine, if it's someone from a minority party trying to have a discharge petition, it would be very difficult because how are they going to get 51% of the 435 representatives to vote for it? And so that's why, in practice, this is actually not that typical. So the big picture here, beyond the constitutional powers that are given to the House or the Senate, in general, the House of Representatives is much more hierarchical. The power is centralized, especially within the majority party. And because of that centralized power, it allows the House to get bills moving much faster, especially once they go through the House floor. You don't have this notion of a filibuster and this notion that you have to get a supermajority in order to actually get a vote and get something passed."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And as we'll see, the processes and the rules that the Senate uses makes it more difficult for a simple majority to do what they want. So in terms of special influence, only the Senate, not the House of Representatives, is involved in ratifying treaties. So the executive, the president, they can negotiate a treaty, but it does not become effective, binding from a United States point of view, until it is ratified by the United States Senate. And it has to be ratified by a 2 3rds supermajority. And this is one of the reasons why it is viewed that the Senate has more influence on foreign relations than the House of Representatives. The other area that the Senate is involved is in confirming appointments. These could be appointments to the president's cabinet."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it has to be ratified by a 2 3rds supermajority. And this is one of the reasons why it is viewed that the Senate has more influence on foreign relations than the House of Representatives. The other area that the Senate is involved is in confirming appointments. These could be appointments to the president's cabinet. These could also be judiciary appointments. It could be to lower federal courts or to the United States Supreme Court. The House of Representatives, once again, is not involved."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These could be appointments to the president's cabinet. These could also be judiciary appointments. It could be to lower federal courts or to the United States Supreme Court. The House of Representatives, once again, is not involved. But to appreciate just how things go through the Senate, whether we're talking about appointments or even if we're talking about general legislation, let's remind ourselves the overall process. So let's just say that this is a piece of legislation right over here. It could have been drafted by a staffer for a senator, maybe with help from some constituents or from some special interest groups, maybe some lobbyists."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The House of Representatives, once again, is not involved. But to appreciate just how things go through the Senate, whether we're talking about appointments or even if we're talking about general legislation, let's remind ourselves the overall process. So let's just say that this is a piece of legislation right over here. It could have been drafted by a staffer for a senator, maybe with help from some constituents or from some special interest groups, maybe some lobbyists. And it will be introduced to an appropriate committee by a senator or by a group of senators. For example, if this legislation is about the armed services it would go to the Armed Services Committee. Now the committee could decide to have some hearings around the legislation."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It could have been drafted by a staffer for a senator, maybe with help from some constituents or from some special interest groups, maybe some lobbyists. And it will be introduced to an appropriate committee by a senator or by a group of senators. For example, if this legislation is about the armed services it would go to the Armed Services Committee. Now the committee could decide to have some hearings around the legislation. Maybe they bring in the Secretary of Defense. Maybe they bring in some military leaders and ask them questions about their views about whether the legislation is a good idea or not or they just want general context. Then they might also have some debate."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now the committee could decide to have some hearings around the legislation. Maybe they bring in the Secretary of Defense. Maybe they bring in some military leaders and ask them questions about their views about whether the legislation is a good idea or not or they just want general context. Then they might also have some debate. And then they might decide to vote on that legislation. And if that vote passes, if they get a majority in that committee, then it will go to the Senate floor. Now before we even talk about what happens on the floor of the Senate, because that's where things get really interesting, it's important to point out that even within committee the leadership has a lot of influence."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then they might also have some debate. And then they might decide to vote on that legislation. And if that vote passes, if they get a majority in that committee, then it will go to the Senate floor. Now before we even talk about what happens on the floor of the Senate, because that's where things get really interesting, it's important to point out that even within committee the leadership has a lot of influence. And the leadership is generally controlled by the majority party. Because the leadership might decide that, hey, you know what, they're not interested in this bill. So instead of going through this process here, they might just decide to table the bill, which kind of just puts it into a limbo."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now before we even talk about what happens on the floor of the Senate, because that's where things get really interesting, it's important to point out that even within committee the leadership has a lot of influence. And the leadership is generally controlled by the majority party. Because the leadership might decide that, hey, you know what, they're not interested in this bill. So instead of going through this process here, they might just decide to table the bill, which kind of just puts it into a limbo. But let's talk about the reality where it does get voted on, it does get a majority, and it goes to the Senate floor. Now what's going to happen next in the Senate floor is a debate over that bill. And I'm writing debate in caps because the Senate is famous for its debates."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So instead of going through this process here, they might just decide to table the bill, which kind of just puts it into a limbo. But let's talk about the reality where it does get voted on, it does get a majority, and it goes to the Senate floor. Now what's going to happen next in the Senate floor is a debate over that bill. And I'm writing debate in caps because the Senate is famous for its debates. And the whole idea of ending a debate so that you can vote is critical inside of the Senate. In order to end a debate, you need something called unanimous consent. Unanimous consent, which is exactly what it sounds like."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I'm writing debate in caps because the Senate is famous for its debates. And the whole idea of ending a debate so that you can vote is critical inside of the Senate. In order to end a debate, you need something called unanimous consent. Unanimous consent, which is exactly what it sounds like. It has to be unanimous. All of the senators, all 100, have to agree, have to consent to ending the debate so that you can get to a vote. And once you get to the vote, if we're talking about a general piece of legislation, if we're talking about an appointment, then you just need a simple majority."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Unanimous consent, which is exactly what it sounds like. It has to be unanimous. All of the senators, all 100, have to agree, have to consent to ending the debate so that you can get to a vote. And once you get to the vote, if we're talking about a general piece of legislation, if we're talking about an appointment, then you just need a simple majority. So you just need 51 votes to pass. Now some of you might be saying, wait, hold on a second. I've always heard that in the Senate, in order to do anything, you need a super majority."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And once you get to the vote, if we're talking about a general piece of legislation, if we're talking about an appointment, then you just need a simple majority. So you just need 51 votes to pass. Now some of you might be saying, wait, hold on a second. I've always heard that in the Senate, in order to do anything, you need a super majority. You might have heard the 60 vote number. The reason why you hear that is because many times, the folks who do not want to have a vote, especially if they think that the vote is going to go against them, they will decide to not consent to having a vote. And when you don't consent to having a vote, that is known as a hold."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I've always heard that in the Senate, in order to do anything, you need a super majority. You might have heard the 60 vote number. The reason why you hear that is because many times, the folks who do not want to have a vote, especially if they think that the vote is going to go against them, they will decide to not consent to having a vote. And when you don't consent to having a vote, that is known as a hold. And so that one senator, or it could be a group of senators that say, hey, I'm not giving my consent to go to a vote. I want to keep debating on it. They are placing a hold."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And when you don't consent to having a vote, that is known as a hold. And so that one senator, or it could be a group of senators that say, hey, I'm not giving my consent to go to a vote. I want to keep debating on it. They are placing a hold. And this protracted debate is often known as a filibuster, which is a very strange word. It was originally in reference to pirates, but it came to mean folks who are trying to hold up the legislation process. And it's become a mechanism by which the folks who don't want the vote, who might be against the bill, who might be in the minority, they might not have enough votes to defeat the bill, might still try to hold things up."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They are placing a hold. And this protracted debate is often known as a filibuster, which is a very strange word. It was originally in reference to pirates, but it came to mean folks who are trying to hold up the legislation process. And it's become a mechanism by which the folks who don't want the vote, who might be against the bill, who might be in the minority, they might not have enough votes to defeat the bill, might still try to hold things up. Now the reason why you've heard about 60 votes is because generally speaking, that is how you stop a filibuster. If you want to stop a filibuster, you need to do something called cloture, or another way of thinking about it is closure of the debate so that you can get to a vote. And the reason why you hear 60 votes is for general legislation, you need 60 votes in order to have cloture."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's become a mechanism by which the folks who don't want the vote, who might be against the bill, who might be in the minority, they might not have enough votes to defeat the bill, might still try to hold things up. Now the reason why you've heard about 60 votes is because generally speaking, that is how you stop a filibuster. If you want to stop a filibuster, you need to do something called cloture, or another way of thinking about it is closure of the debate so that you can get to a vote. And the reason why you hear 60 votes is for general legislation, you need 60 votes in order to have cloture. So even though you only need 51 votes for the legislation to pass once you vote on it, to even get to that point, you need 60 votes. And this is why you hear that for legislation to actually get through the Senate, you need 60 votes. Now there is an exception to this, and that exception is around appointments."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the reason why you hear 60 votes is for general legislation, you need 60 votes in order to have cloture. So even though you only need 51 votes for the legislation to pass once you vote on it, to even get to that point, you need 60 votes. And this is why you hear that for legislation to actually get through the Senate, you need 60 votes. Now there is an exception to this, and that exception is around appointments. Prior to 2013, in order to have cloture for an appointment, you also needed 60 votes. But in 2013, it was decided that for non-Supreme Court appointments, you only needed 51 votes for cloture. And then in 2017, this was extended also to Supreme Court appointments."}, {"video_title": "Senate filibusters, unanimous consent and cloture   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now there is an exception to this, and that exception is around appointments. Prior to 2013, in order to have cloture for an appointment, you also needed 60 votes. But in 2013, it was decided that for non-Supreme Court appointments, you only needed 51 votes for cloture. And then in 2017, this was extended also to Supreme Court appointments. And so now for appointments, you only need 51 votes for cloture to end a filibuster, and so, and of course, you only need 51 votes for the confirmation, so functionally, you just need a simple majority now in the Senate for confirmations. But legislation, you need 60 votes, and of course, for things like treaties, you need a 2 3rds supermajority. To convict someone in an impeachment, say the president, you need a 2 3rds supermajority."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Before we dive deep into our study of government and politics, it's worth asking a fundamental question, and that's whether we even need government or why do we need government. And I encourage you to pause this video and think about this. Do you think we need government and why or do you think we don't need government and why? Okay, now let's start to reason through this a little bit and start to think about the benefits or the pitfalls of a government. So let's say that we are in a world without a government. And this is me right over here. And at first it sounds pretty good."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay, now let's start to reason through this a little bit and start to think about the benefits or the pitfalls of a government. So let's say that we are in a world without a government. And this is me right over here. And at first it sounds pretty good. I have unlimited rights here. There's no one infringing on my right. I can say what I want."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And at first it sounds pretty good. I have unlimited rights here. There's no one infringing on my right. I can say what I want. I have the freest possible speech. There are no laws that I could break. I have the freest possible religion."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I can say what I want. I have the freest possible speech. There are no laws that I could break. I have the freest possible religion. I have no government telling me what to practice or what I can't practice. I have, I can own what I want. I have property."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I have the freest possible religion. I have no government telling me what to practice or what I can't practice. I have, I can own what I want. I have property. I can go anywhere, so I have movement. And I also have some freedoms that those of us who live in a government don't typically have. So I would have the freedom to tax others or to take from others, take property."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I have property. I can go anywhere, so I have movement. And I also have some freedoms that those of us who live in a government don't typically have. So I would have the freedom to tax others or to take from others, take property. If I'm stronger than them or if I'm just sneakier, I go in the middle of the night, I can just take their property from them. I could just settle on their land. I could have the freedom to punish others or imprison others if I don't like them."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So I would have the freedom to tax others or to take from others, take property. If I'm stronger than them or if I'm just sneakier, I go in the middle of the night, I can just take their property from them. I could just settle on their land. I could have the freedom to punish others or imprison others if I don't like them. It doesn't even have to be for a reason. This is a freedom that most of us don't have in the world that we live in today. But without a government, I would have this freedom, this freedom to go and take stuff from others and to do physical harm or imprison them or enslave them."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I could have the freedom to punish others or imprison others if I don't like them. It doesn't even have to be for a reason. This is a freedom that most of us don't have in the world that we live in today. But without a government, I would have this freedom, this freedom to go and take stuff from others and to do physical harm or imprison them or enslave them. Now this might sound good to you as an individual, but remember, everyone in this governmentless society would have these same freedoms. And I especially like the ability to have my own property and to have my own freedom of movement. But what if this person right over here doesn't like me to have freedom of movement and so they say, they're going to invoke, look, I can punish or imprison you because I don't like you."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But without a government, I would have this freedom, this freedom to go and take stuff from others and to do physical harm or imprison them or enslave them. Now this might sound good to you as an individual, but remember, everyone in this governmentless society would have these same freedoms. And I especially like the ability to have my own property and to have my own freedom of movement. But what if this person right over here doesn't like me to have freedom of movement and so they say, they're going to invoke, look, I can punish or imprison you because I don't like you. And so they're going to infringe on my freedom of movement by imprisoning me. Or maybe I might do it to someone else. And so even though you have all of these freedoms, because everyone else does, especially these latter few, they might be able to take some of these from you, including your freedom to live, your health, your happiness."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what if this person right over here doesn't like me to have freedom of movement and so they say, they're going to invoke, look, I can punish or imprison you because I don't like you. And so they're going to infringe on my freedom of movement by imprisoning me. Or maybe I might do it to someone else. And so even though you have all of these freedoms, because everyone else does, especially these latter few, they might be able to take some of these from you, including your freedom to live, your health, your happiness. And this is well described in political philosophy. In particular, you have a gentleman by the name of Thomas Hobbes who's considered one of the fathers of political philosophy. And this is what he had to say about this state of nature."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so even though you have all of these freedoms, because everyone else does, especially these latter few, they might be able to take some of these from you, including your freedom to live, your health, your happiness. And this is well described in political philosophy. In particular, you have a gentleman by the name of Thomas Hobbes who's considered one of the fathers of political philosophy. And this is what he had to say about this state of nature. As long as men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in the condition known as war. And it is a war of every man against every man. In war, the two chief virtues are force and fraud."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is what he had to say about this state of nature. As long as men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in the condition known as war. And it is a war of every man against every man. In war, the two chief virtues are force and fraud. I can do something by physical force, or I could trick you, or I could sneak around you and take something from you or imprison you. A further fact about the state of war of every man against every man, in it there is no such thing as ownership, no legal control, no distinction between mine and thine, between mine and yours. Rather, anything that a man can get is his for as long as he can keep it."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In war, the two chief virtues are force and fraud. I can do something by physical force, or I could trick you, or I could sneak around you and take something from you or imprison you. A further fact about the state of war of every man against every man, in it there is no such thing as ownership, no legal control, no distinction between mine and thine, between mine and yours. Rather, anything that a man can get is his for as long as he can keep it. In such a condition, every man has a right to everything, even to someone else's body. As long as this continues, therefore, that is as long as every man continues to have this natural right to everything, no man, however strong or clever he may be, can be sure of living out the time that nature ordinarily allows men to live. This was written in Leviathan, which was published in 1651."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Rather, anything that a man can get is his for as long as he can keep it. In such a condition, every man has a right to everything, even to someone else's body. As long as this continues, therefore, that is as long as every man continues to have this natural right to everything, no man, however strong or clever he may be, can be sure of living out the time that nature ordinarily allows men to live. This was written in Leviathan, which was published in 1651. So he's framing the same thing. If everyone has a right to everything, well, they can infringe on other people, including their life, their health, their happiness, their freedom to movement. Now, some of you might be skeptical of this."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This was written in Leviathan, which was published in 1651. So he's framing the same thing. If everyone has a right to everything, well, they can infringe on other people, including their life, their health, their happiness, their freedom to movement. Now, some of you might be skeptical of this. You might say, look, humans are fundamentally good. If you give them that freedom, they have a conscience, they're not going to try to do this to other people. But some of you might be able to cite times in society where there's more of an anarchy, where actually people might devolve."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, some of you might be skeptical of this. You might say, look, humans are fundamentally good. If you give them that freedom, they have a conscience, they're not going to try to do this to other people. But some of you might be able to cite times in society where there's more of an anarchy, where actually people might devolve. And even if one or two or three, or even if a majority of the people have a conscience and aren't willing to imprison others and punish people arbitrarily, if even a few people are not willing to respect other people's rights, everything might devolve. And it's worth talking about the historical context here because this was near the end of the English Civil War, where there was chaos, where people were asking these questions, well, what type of government should we have? And when there isn't a strong government, all of this chaos is really all about person versus person."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But some of you might be able to cite times in society where there's more of an anarchy, where actually people might devolve. And even if one or two or three, or even if a majority of the people have a conscience and aren't willing to imprison others and punish people arbitrarily, if even a few people are not willing to respect other people's rights, everything might devolve. And it's worth talking about the historical context here because this was near the end of the English Civil War, where there was chaos, where people were asking these questions, well, what type of government should we have? And when there isn't a strong government, all of this chaos is really all about person versus person. It wasn't this degree of chaos that Hobbes is writing about, this kind of natural state without government, but this was a context where there was a lot of bloodshed, a lot of war, and a lot of chaos. Now, Hobbes had a solution, and this is actually why the book was called Leviathan. He was an advocate of a very strong central government."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And when there isn't a strong government, all of this chaos is really all about person versus person. It wasn't this degree of chaos that Hobbes is writing about, this kind of natural state without government, but this was a context where there was a lot of bloodshed, a lot of war, and a lot of chaos. Now, Hobbes had a solution, and this is actually why the book was called Leviathan. He was an advocate of a very strong central government. This keeps people in awe, alludes to what he's thinking of. Leviathan comes from the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Bible. It's the name of a sea monster."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He was an advocate of a very strong central government. This keeps people in awe, alludes to what he's thinking of. Leviathan comes from the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Bible. It's the name of a sea monster. But Hobbes thinks that a government should be a Leviathan to keep everyone in check. He wrote, when a man thinks that peace and self-defense require it, he should be willing, when others are too, to lay down his right to everything, and should be contented with as much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. Now, this idea that he's talking about, this is today referred to as a social, social contract."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's the name of a sea monster. But Hobbes thinks that a government should be a Leviathan to keep everyone in check. He wrote, when a man thinks that peace and self-defense require it, he should be willing, when others are too, to lay down his right to everything, and should be contented with as much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. Now, this idea that he's talking about, this is today referred to as a social, social contract. And this term, social contract, is first formally used by Rousseau, another Enlightenment author, about 100 years later, talking about this willingness to give up some rights in order to protect the ones that you really, really, really wanna have. And you would be giving up those rights to some form of a government. That is the social contract between the people that are governed and the government that governs them."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, this idea that he's talking about, this is today referred to as a social, social contract. And this term, social contract, is first formally used by Rousseau, another Enlightenment author, about 100 years later, talking about this willingness to give up some rights in order to protect the ones that you really, really, really wanna have. And you would be giving up those rights to some form of a government. That is the social contract between the people that are governed and the government that governs them. So going back to that previous example where every person was out for themselves, what the social contract is saying is, well, look, certain of these rights I really wanna keep, my freedom of speech, my freedom of property, my freedom to move around, my freedom to have my life, my health, my happiness, in order to protect those freedoms, maybe I'm willing to give some of my other freedoms over to a central authority as long as everyone is willing to give these up. And this central authority that we give it up to is a government. And the government, because it has this, it uses these rights in order to protect the other rights, the ones that I really want to keep."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That is the social contract between the people that are governed and the government that governs them. So going back to that previous example where every person was out for themselves, what the social contract is saying is, well, look, certain of these rights I really wanna keep, my freedom of speech, my freedom of property, my freedom to move around, my freedom to have my life, my health, my happiness, in order to protect those freedoms, maybe I'm willing to give some of my other freedoms over to a central authority as long as everyone is willing to give these up. And this central authority that we give it up to is a government. And the government, because it has this, it uses these rights in order to protect the other rights, the ones that I really want to keep. So the government enforces these other rights, and that's the social contract. I give away these rights in order to protect the ones that I really, really care about. And that makes sense, but it still leaves a very, very big question."}, {"video_title": "The social contract   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the government, because it has this, it uses these rights in order to protect the other rights, the ones that I really want to keep. So the government enforces these other rights, and that's the social contract. I give away these rights in order to protect the ones that I really, really care about. And that makes sense, but it still leaves a very, very big question. What form should this government take? I'm willing to engage in this social contract, but how does this government govern? How are the leaders selected?"}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Before we talk about the debt ceiling, it's important to realize the difference between the deficit and the debt. Because these words are thrown around and it's clear that they're related, but sometimes people might confuse one for the other. The deficit is how much you overspend in a given year, while the debt is the total amount, the cumulative amount of debt you've gotten over many, many years. Let's take a very simplified example. Let's say you have some type of a country and that country spends $10. But it's only bringing in $6 in tax revenue. So it's bringing in in taxes, it's only bringing in $6."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's take a very simplified example. Let's say you have some type of a country and that country spends $10. But it's only bringing in $6 in tax revenue. So it's bringing in in taxes, it's only bringing in $6. So this country in this year, where it spends $10, even though it only has $6 to spend, it has a $4 deficit. $4 DEF is short for deficit. Let me just write it out."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it's bringing in in taxes, it's only bringing in $6. So this country in this year, where it spends $10, even though it only has $6 to spend, it has a $4 deficit. $4 DEF is short for deficit. Let me just write it out. You might think it's defense or something. It has a $4 deficit. You might say, well, how does it spend more money than it brings in?"}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let me just write it out. You might think it's defense or something. It has a $4 deficit. You might say, well, how does it spend more money than it brings in? How can it actually continue to spend this much? Where will it get the $4 from? The answer is it will borrow that $4."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You might say, well, how does it spend more money than it brings in? How can it actually continue to spend this much? Where will it get the $4 from? The answer is it will borrow that $4. Our little country will borrow it. The debt, maybe going into this year, the country already had some debt. Maybe it already had $100 of debt."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The answer is it will borrow that $4. Our little country will borrow it. The debt, maybe going into this year, the country already had some debt. Maybe it already had $100 of debt. In this situation, it would have to borrow another $4 of debt. Exiting this year, it would have $104 of debt. If the country runs the same $4 deficit the year after this, then the debt will increase to $108."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe it already had $100 of debt. In this situation, it would have to borrow another $4 of debt. Exiting this year, it would have $104 of debt. If the country runs the same $4 deficit the year after this, then the debt will increase to $108. If it runs another $4 deficit, then the debt will increase to $112. Now that we have that out of the way, let's think about what the debt ceiling is. You can imagine the United States actually does, it's continuing to run a deficit."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If the country runs the same $4 deficit the year after this, then the debt will increase to $108. If it runs another $4 deficit, then the debt will increase to $112. Now that we have that out of the way, let's think about what the debt ceiling is. You can imagine the United States actually does, it's continuing to run a deficit. It's continuing to spend more than it brings in. Actually, for the United States, these ratios are appropriate. For every dollar that the United States spends right now, 40% is borrowed."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You can imagine the United States actually does, it's continuing to run a deficit. It's continuing to spend more than it brings in. Actually, for the United States, these ratios are appropriate. For every dollar that the United States spends right now, 40% is borrowed. Or another way to think about it, it only has 60% of every dollar that it needs to spend right now. It has to go out into the debt markets and borrow 40% to keep spending at its current rate. If it's continuing to borrow, you can imagine that the debt keeps on increasing."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "For every dollar that the United States spends right now, 40% is borrowed. Or another way to think about it, it only has 60% of every dollar that it needs to spend right now. It has to go out into the debt markets and borrow 40% to keep spending at its current rate. If it's continuing to borrow, you can imagine that the debt keeps on increasing. Let me draw a little graph here. That axis is time. This axis right over here is the total cumulative amount of debt that we have."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If it's continuing to borrow, you can imagine that the debt keeps on increasing. Let me draw a little graph here. That axis is time. This axis right over here is the total cumulative amount of debt that we have. We continue to have to borrow 40% of every dollar that we're spending, so our debt is continuing to increase. Congress has the power or Congress has the authority to essentially limit how much debt we have. Right now, we have a current debt limit of $14.3 trillion."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This axis right over here is the total cumulative amount of debt that we have. We continue to have to borrow 40% of every dollar that we're spending, so our debt is continuing to increase. Congress has the power or Congress has the authority to essentially limit how much debt we have. Right now, we have a current debt limit of $14.3 trillion. Even though Congress has this authority, the way that it's worked in the past is it's kind of just a rubber stamp. Congress has just always allowed the debt ceiling to go up and up and up to fund our borrowing costs. If you think about it, that kind of makes sense because right now, Congress is the one that decides where to spend the money, what are the obligations."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Right now, we have a current debt limit of $14.3 trillion. Even though Congress has this authority, the way that it's worked in the past is it's kind of just a rubber stamp. Congress has just always allowed the debt ceiling to go up and up and up to fund our borrowing costs. If you think about it, that kind of makes sense because right now, Congress is the one that decides where to spend the money, what are the obligations. The debt ceiling is like, okay, we've already agreed what you have to spend your money on. Congress is the one that figures out what we spend our money on and what our taxes are. They say, look, we've already determined how much you have to borrow."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you think about it, that kind of makes sense because right now, Congress is the one that decides where to spend the money, what are the obligations. The debt ceiling is like, okay, we've already agreed what you have to spend your money on. Congress is the one that figures out what we spend our money on and what our taxes are. They say, look, we've already determined how much you have to borrow. It would seem kind of ridiculous for us, after we've determined how much you borrow, to say that you cannot borrow it. You cannot actually do what we've told you to do. Historically, Congress has just kind of gone with the flow."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They say, look, we've already determined how much you have to borrow. It would seem kind of ridiculous for us, after we've determined how much you borrow, to say that you cannot borrow it. You cannot actually do what we've told you to do. Historically, Congress has just kind of gone with the flow. They said, okay, yeah, we've told you you need to borrow more money to execute. The executive branch has to run the government. For you to actually run the government based on the budget we told you, so they just keep upping it."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Historically, Congress has just kind of gone with the flow. They said, okay, yeah, we've told you you need to borrow more money to execute. The executive branch has to run the government. For you to actually run the government based on the budget we told you, so they just keep upping it. The last time the debt ceiling was raised was actually very recently, February 12, 2010. It was raised from $12.3 trillion to the $14.3 trillion. This happens pretty regularly."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "For you to actually run the government based on the budget we told you, so they just keep upping it. The last time the debt ceiling was raised was actually very recently, February 12, 2010. It was raised from $12.3 trillion to the $14.3 trillion. This happens pretty regularly. It's happened 10 times since 2001, 74 times since 1962. It's just a regular operating thing. Right now, the Obama administration says, look, we've actually come up against our debt ceiling."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This happens pretty regularly. It's happened 10 times since 2001, 74 times since 1962. It's just a regular operating thing. Right now, the Obama administration says, look, we've actually come up against our debt ceiling. We want to raise it. Ideally, for the Obama administration, they want to raise it by about $2.4 trillion. They want to raise it to $16.7 trillion, which will kind of put it off the table for a little bit, and pass the elections so that we don't have to debate this anymore."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Right now, the Obama administration says, look, we've actually come up against our debt ceiling. We want to raise it. Ideally, for the Obama administration, they want to raise it by about $2.4 trillion. They want to raise it to $16.7 trillion, which will kind of put it off the table for a little bit, and pass the elections so that we don't have to debate this anymore. The Republicans on the other side want to essentially use this, and this is a little bit unusual, to use this as leverage to essentially reduce the deficit, and not only to reduce the deficit, but in particular to reduce the deficit through spending cuts. That's why it's become this big game of chicken and why we're going up against this limit. Now, one thing that you may or may not realize is that we've actually already hit the debt limit, the current debt limit, and we hit that debt limit on May 16, 2011."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They want to raise it to $16.7 trillion, which will kind of put it off the table for a little bit, and pass the elections so that we don't have to debate this anymore. The Republicans on the other side want to essentially use this, and this is a little bit unusual, to use this as leverage to essentially reduce the deficit, and not only to reduce the deficit, but in particular to reduce the deficit through spending cuts. That's why it's become this big game of chicken and why we're going up against this limit. Now, one thing that you may or may not realize is that we've actually already hit the debt limit, the current debt limit, and we hit that debt limit on May 16, 2011. I'm making this video at the end of July in 2011. The only reason why the country is continuing to operate, and the only reason why the country has been able to continue to pay interest on its obligations, pay, issue Social Security checks, and support Medicare, and buy fuel for aircraft carriers, and all the rest, is that Geithner, who's the Treasury Secretary, has been able to find cash in other places, cash normally set aside for employee pensions and all the rest, and has essentially done a little bit of bookkeeping, taking money from one place to feed another. But what he said, what he's publicly said, is that he won't be able to do that anymore as of August 2, 2011."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, one thing that you may or may not realize is that we've actually already hit the debt limit, the current debt limit, and we hit that debt limit on May 16, 2011. I'm making this video at the end of July in 2011. The only reason why the country is continuing to operate, and the only reason why the country has been able to continue to pay interest on its obligations, pay, issue Social Security checks, and support Medicare, and buy fuel for aircraft carriers, and all the rest, is that Geithner, who's the Treasury Secretary, has been able to find cash in other places, cash normally set aside for employee pensions and all the rest, and has essentially done a little bit of bookkeeping, taking money from one place to feed another. But what he said, what he's publicly said, is that he won't be able to do that anymore as of August 2, 2011. So this right here is the date that everyone is paying attention to, August 2, 2011. According to Geithner, at that point, he won't be able to find random pockets of cash here and there and shuffle it around in what he calls extraordinary measures. At that point, the United States will not be able to fulfill all of its obligations."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what he said, what he's publicly said, is that he won't be able to do that anymore as of August 2, 2011. So this right here is the date that everyone is paying attention to, August 2, 2011. According to Geithner, at that point, he won't be able to find random pockets of cash here and there and shuffle it around in what he calls extraordinary measures. At that point, the United States will not be able to fulfill all of its obligations. And so if you think about all of the obligations of the United States, this is a huge oversimplification here, so this bar represents all of the obligations. Some of those obligations are things like, well, it's interest on the debt that it already owes. It already owes a huge amount of debt, $14.3 trillion."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "At that point, the United States will not be able to fulfill all of its obligations. And so if you think about all of the obligations of the United States, this is a huge oversimplification here, so this bar represents all of the obligations. Some of those obligations are things like, well, it's interest on the debt that it already owes. It already owes a huge amount of debt, $14.3 trillion. Things like Social Security, Medicare, defense, and then all of the other stuff that the country has to support, all of their other obligations. So if as of August 2, 2011, we cannot issue any more debt, and Geithner doesn't have any extra cash laying around with these extraordinary measures, then the only option, if those are the only options on the table, the only option is to somehow reduce some of these things by 40%, because 40% of every dollar we used to spend on all of these obligations, 40% are borrowed. And so something over here is going to give."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It already owes a huge amount of debt, $14.3 trillion. Things like Social Security, Medicare, defense, and then all of the other stuff that the country has to support, all of their other obligations. So if as of August 2, 2011, we cannot issue any more debt, and Geithner doesn't have any extra cash laying around with these extraordinary measures, then the only option, if those are the only options on the table, the only option is to somehow reduce some of these things by 40%, because 40% of every dollar we used to spend on all of these obligations, 40% are borrowed. And so something over here is going to give. We're not going to fulfill our obligations to one or more of these things, all of these things that we are legally obligated to fulfill that Congress has said. These are the things that the United States should be spending its money on. And so at that point, it is perceived that we would have to default."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so something over here is going to give. We're not going to fulfill our obligations to one or more of these things, all of these things that we are legally obligated to fulfill that Congress has said. These are the things that the United States should be spending its money on. And so at that point, it is perceived that we would have to default. And a default actually would be on any of its obligations, but in particular, we could be, especially if we have to cut everything by 40% and we don't want to see retirees not be able to get evicted from their houses or aircraft carriers not have fuel or whatever else, we might defer or try to restructure or do something weird with our debt, in which case we would be defaulting. And I want to be clear, a default, it's usually referred to not fully paying the interest on debt that you owe, but a default would be any of its obligations. The United States has this AAA rating."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so at that point, it is perceived that we would have to default. And a default actually would be on any of its obligations, but in particular, we could be, especially if we have to cut everything by 40% and we don't want to see retirees not be able to get evicted from their houses or aircraft carriers not have fuel or whatever else, we might defer or try to restructure or do something weird with our debt, in which case we would be defaulting. And I want to be clear, a default, it's usually referred to not fully paying the interest on debt that you owe, but a default would be any of its obligations. The United States has this AAA rating. If the United States says it's going to give you a Social Security check, you trust that. If the United States says that it's going to pay for that Medicare payment, you trust that. If it says it's going to give you an interest payment, you trust that."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The United States has this AAA rating. If the United States says it's going to give you a Social Security check, you trust that. If the United States says that it's going to pay for that Medicare payment, you trust that. If it says it's going to give you an interest payment, you trust that. All of a sudden, if the United States does not fulfill any of those obligations, then all of the obligations become suspect. And the reason why this is a big deal is you can imagine if you borrow money and you've always been good at paying back that money, you're going to pay lower interest than other people would have to pay. But all of a sudden, for whatever reason, one day you default, you either delay your payments or you say you don't have the cash to pay your payments, then people say, wow, you're a much riskier person to lend money to, so now I'm going to increase the interest rates on you."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If it says it's going to give you an interest payment, you trust that. All of a sudden, if the United States does not fulfill any of those obligations, then all of the obligations become suspect. And the reason why this is a big deal is you can imagine if you borrow money and you've always been good at paying back that money, you're going to pay lower interest than other people would have to pay. But all of a sudden, for whatever reason, one day you default, you either delay your payments or you say you don't have the cash to pay your payments, then people say, wow, you're a much riskier person to lend money to, so now I'm going to increase the interest rates on you. And so the perception is that if the United States were to default on its debt or any of its obligations, that interest rates would go up. And the reason why this would really not be great is because it would make the debt and the deficit even worse. Then this chunk is going to have to grow."}, {"video_title": "Deficit and debt ceiling   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But all of a sudden, for whatever reason, one day you default, you either delay your payments or you say you don't have the cash to pay your payments, then people say, wow, you're a much riskier person to lend money to, so now I'm going to increase the interest rates on you. And so the perception is that if the United States were to default on its debt or any of its obligations, that interest rates would go up. And the reason why this would really not be great is because it would make the debt and the deficit even worse. Then this chunk is going to have to grow. Our obligations are on debt. As new debt gets issued, we're going to have to pay more and more interest, so it's going to just make matters worse. It's going to make the deficit worse."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What we're going to do in this video is think about how a person's environment or experiences affects their political perspective, their political attitude. So one way to think about it is how is your socialization, your political socialization, how does that drive your political attitudes? And I encourage you, pause this video, think about your own political leanings, whether you lean to the left or you lean to the right, where did that come from? Was it just you in a vacuum thinking about things? Or were you influenced by your family, your friends, your school, maybe the media, maybe something that you're a part of, maybe a club or a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple? And this is actually an area of study for political scientists. And as you can imagine, some of the things that I just mentioned are significant factors that people have studied in terms of what develops people's political attitudes."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Was it just you in a vacuum thinking about things? Or were you influenced by your family, your friends, your school, maybe the media, maybe something that you're a part of, maybe a club or a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple? And this is actually an area of study for political scientists. And as you can imagine, some of the things that I just mentioned are significant factors that people have studied in terms of what develops people's political attitudes. If you come from a family of staunch Democrats, you're more likely to be a Democrat, or at least lean to the left. If the environment of your school or what you were exposed to in school leans one way or another, you are likely, more likely, to lean in that direction. If your friends go one direction or other, that could be a very powerful influence."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And as you can imagine, some of the things that I just mentioned are significant factors that people have studied in terms of what develops people's political attitudes. If you come from a family of staunch Democrats, you're more likely to be a Democrat, or at least lean to the left. If the environment of your school or what you were exposed to in school leans one way or another, you are likely, more likely, to lean in that direction. If your friends go one direction or other, that could be a very powerful influence. Obviously, what you're exposed to in the media. And out of all of these, the one that's maybe the most studied is the notion of family. And to appreciate this idea, let's look at this diagram right over here."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If your friends go one direction or other, that could be a very powerful influence. Obviously, what you're exposed to in the media. And out of all of these, the one that's maybe the most studied is the notion of family. And to appreciate this idea, let's look at this diagram right over here. So I encourage you to pause this video and see if you can make sense of this before we do that together. All right, it says percentage intergenerational resemblance in partisan orientation. And this data is from 1992."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And to appreciate this idea, let's look at this diagram right over here. So I encourage you to pause this video and see if you can make sense of this before we do that together. All right, it says percentage intergenerational resemblance in partisan orientation. And this data is from 1992. So it shows three different scenarios. One scenario where we are looking at folks where both parents are Democrats. Another scenario where we're looking at folks where both parents are Republicans."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this data is from 1992. So it shows three different scenarios. One scenario where we are looking at folks where both parents are Democrats. Another scenario where we're looking at folks where both parents are Republicans. And then another scenario where there is no consistent partisanship among parents. So either they are split or maybe they are independent. And actually, if we look at this third scenario first, you see that it's a pretty symmetrical distribution."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Another scenario where we're looking at folks where both parents are Republicans. And then another scenario where there is no consistent partisanship among parents. So either they are split or maybe they are independent. And actually, if we look at this third scenario first, you see that it's a pretty symmetrical distribution. Green shows of people whose parents show no partisan preference, 17% are pure independent. About 18% lean towards the Democrats. 16% lean to the Republican."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And actually, if we look at this third scenario first, you see that it's a pretty symmetrical distribution. Green shows of people whose parents show no partisan preference, 17% are pure independent. About 18% lean towards the Democrats. 16% lean to the Republican. That's about the same. 14% are weak Democrats. 14% are weak Republicans."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "16% lean to the Republican. That's about the same. 14% are weak Democrats. 14% are weak Republicans. 10% are strong Democrats. 10% are strong Republicans. So it's a pretty balanced distribution here."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "14% are weak Republicans. 10% are strong Democrats. 10% are strong Republicans. So it's a pretty balanced distribution here. But then if you look at the scenario where both parents are Democrats, you see that of those folks, only, what is this? This is eight plus six is 14 plus seven. Only 21% are Republicans."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it's a pretty balanced distribution here. But then if you look at the scenario where both parents are Democrats, you see that of those folks, only, what is this? This is eight plus six is 14 plus seven. Only 21% are Republicans. And if you go the other way, where both parents are Republicans, you have only 18% of those folks become Democrats. So this is just interesting food for thought. A lot of us really like to believe, including myself, that hey, I've come to all of these conclusions based on completely impartial thoughts about how the world should be."}, {"video_title": "Political socialization   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Only 21% are Republicans. And if you go the other way, where both parents are Republicans, you have only 18% of those folks become Democrats. So this is just interesting food for thought. A lot of us really like to believe, including myself, that hey, I've come to all of these conclusions based on completely impartial thoughts about how the world should be. But we are influenced by our environment, and especially from our family. And frankly, even the folks who go in a different direction than their families, that might have been because of their family. Maybe they decide that hey, dad always frustrated me one way or the other, so I'm gonna go the other way."}, {"video_title": "Why does your vote matter   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why does your vote matter? Your vote matters because in the most specific case, there might be a race where you live for the House or the Senate or even the presidency where your vote really could determine who the winner of that race is. We saw in the 2000 presidential election race, that basically the entire presidency was determined by a difference of 537 votes in Florida. So that's a special case. But then also there are reasons to vote that have nothing to do with the people who are running for the national offices. There are lots of local offices where laws are put on the books that really can affect your day-to-day life. There's also referendums in various states and localities."}, {"video_title": "Why does your vote matter   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that's a special case. But then also there are reasons to vote that have nothing to do with the people who are running for the national offices. There are lots of local offices where laws are put on the books that really can affect your day-to-day life. There's also referendums in various states and localities. There are about 150-odd referendas on everything from whether marijuana should be legalized to whether and how poor people get medical coverage. Those are also on the ballot in a lot of places. But there's also, when a vote takes place for somebody who is being elected, it's not just for the policies of the day."}, {"video_title": "Why does your vote matter   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's also referendums in various states and localities. There are about 150-odd referendas on everything from whether marijuana should be legalized to whether and how poor people get medical coverage. Those are also on the ballot in a lot of places. But there's also, when a vote takes place for somebody who is being elected, it's not just for the policies of the day. It's also for the policies that may yet come. And if you have a view on the way things should be handled, you should exercise your voice because it not only, even if you are in a place where your vote is not going to matter in terms of directly electing the person you want, voting sends a message to those lawmakers. And it sends one of two kinds of messages."}, {"video_title": "Why does your vote matter   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But there's also, when a vote takes place for somebody who is being elected, it's not just for the policies of the day. It's also for the policies that may yet come. And if you have a view on the way things should be handled, you should exercise your voice because it not only, even if you are in a place where your vote is not going to matter in terms of directly electing the person you want, voting sends a message to those lawmakers. And it sends one of two kinds of messages. One, it says this number of people represents this viewpoint. And lawmakers should listen to that kind of message from the voters. A lot of times, even if they don't listen to it, well, their opponents will be able to raise it and say, look, this many people believe in this and you should."}, {"video_title": "Why does your vote matter   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it sends one of two kinds of messages. One, it says this number of people represents this viewpoint. And lawmakers should listen to that kind of message from the voters. A lot of times, even if they don't listen to it, well, their opponents will be able to raise it and say, look, this many people believe in this and you should. It is a fact that is then used in public debate. And that fact can sometimes be used to persuade people. Also, there's the case that lawmakers get nervous and they want to get reelected."}, {"video_title": "Why does your vote matter   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A lot of times, even if they don't listen to it, well, their opponents will be able to raise it and say, look, this many people believe in this and you should. It is a fact that is then used in public debate. And that fact can sometimes be used to persuade people. Also, there's the case that lawmakers get nervous and they want to get reelected. And if they see a lot of people turning out on the other side, even if it doesn't keep them from being elected, well, the next time it might keep them from being elected. So they have to listen. Finally, it's the spiritual kind of American civic religion, which is America started on the idea that we could govern ourselves without resorting to fights."}, {"video_title": "Why does your vote matter   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Also, there's the case that lawmakers get nervous and they want to get reelected. And if they see a lot of people turning out on the other side, even if it doesn't keep them from being elected, well, the next time it might keep them from being elected. So they have to listen. Finally, it's the spiritual kind of American civic religion, which is America started on the idea that we could govern ourselves without resorting to fights. And we've been remarkably successful, although American history is blotted and it is broken in places. But Americans have always transferred power peacefully to each other, with the one great exception of the Civil War. But the electoral system still survived even through that most bloody battle."}, {"video_title": "Why does your vote matter   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Finally, it's the spiritual kind of American civic religion, which is America started on the idea that we could govern ourselves without resorting to fights. And we've been remarkably successful, although American history is blotted and it is broken in places. But Americans have always transferred power peacefully to each other, with the one great exception of the Civil War. But the electoral system still survived even through that most bloody battle. And so as Americans, by voting, we are putting ourselves back in touch with this great original experiment that at its time was unique in American history. And there are still people all across the world who fight and die for the simple ability to cast a vote so that their voice can be heard. And so not only do we have to keep faith with our own history, but also with a world in which it is a human right in some places to vote."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe it's a movie, maybe it's music of some kind. And you observe that there is a site that is operating outside of the United States. And that site, at least in your mind, seems to be infringing on your copyrights by US law. So this is the site in question, and you are saying that it is doing illegal things, at least by US standards. The problem is that there's nothing you can do. It's operating outside of US soil and outside of US laws. You can even go to the government."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is the site in question, and you are saying that it is doing illegal things, at least by US standards. The problem is that there's nothing you can do. It's operating outside of US soil and outside of US laws. You can even go to the government. Even if the government wanted to do something about it, it really couldn't. Because, once again, it is outside the US jurisdiction. The purpose of SOPA, and it seems fairly benign at first, is to give some tools to these actors to stop this."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You can even go to the government. Even if the government wanted to do something about it, it really couldn't. Because, once again, it is outside the US jurisdiction. The purpose of SOPA, and it seems fairly benign at first, is to give some tools to these actors to stop this. The problem, and we'll see that it's actually quite a large problem, is it gives tools to these actors to do much more than just stopping illegal activity. It allows them, essentially, to go on, to some degree, a witch hunt for anyone that might even have a whiff of enabling this type of activity. And it won't even just be for foreign sites."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The purpose of SOPA, and it seems fairly benign at first, is to give some tools to these actors to stop this. The problem, and we'll see that it's actually quite a large problem, is it gives tools to these actors to do much more than just stopping illegal activity. It allows them, essentially, to go on, to some degree, a witch hunt for anyone that might even have a whiff of enabling this type of activity. And it won't even just be for foreign sites. So let's write this down. SOPA stands for Stop Online Piracy Act. It sounds pretty reasonable."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it won't even just be for foreign sites. So let's write this down. SOPA stands for Stop Online Piracy Act. It sounds pretty reasonable. And this is the version of the bill that's coming from the House of Representatives. The one from the Senate, they're slightly different, but they have the same intent, is PIPA. And what it does is, if you can't go after this site itself, maybe you can go after sites that are somehow benefiting this site."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It sounds pretty reasonable. And this is the version of the bill that's coming from the House of Representatives. The one from the Senate, they're slightly different, but they have the same intent, is PIPA. And what it does is, if you can't go after this site itself, maybe you can go after sites that are somehow benefiting this site. And those sites are inside the United States. So this is outside, this is inside the United States. So things that are doing that might include search engines."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what it does is, if you can't go after this site itself, maybe you can go after sites that are somehow benefiting this site. And those sites are inside the United States. So this is outside, this is inside the United States. So things that are doing that might include search engines. So search engines like Google or Bing, they obviously link to this site over here. You might have ad networks. So sites that allow this site over here to display ads and get revenue from them that are benefiting this site over here."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So things that are doing that might include search engines. So search engines like Google or Bing, they obviously link to this site over here. You might have ad networks. So sites that allow this site over here to display ads and get revenue from them that are benefiting this site over here. You might have payment sites like PayPal or credit card processors that this site uses to collect revenue. And maybe, most importantly, you have things like the DNS servers within the U.S. that associate this site's domain name with the actual servers. And I won't get too technical about it."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So sites that allow this site over here to display ads and get revenue from them that are benefiting this site over here. You might have payment sites like PayPal or credit card processors that this site uses to collect revenue. And maybe, most importantly, you have things like the DNS servers within the U.S. that associate this site's domain name with the actual servers. And I won't get too technical about it. But when you type in something like www.shady.shady.foreign, and once again, we're going to see that this site might not even have to be shady or foreign. But when you type something like that in, there are servers in the United States that associate that with these servers that might be operated outside the United States. That associate this text with a number that points to this website, that points to this website's servers."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I won't get too technical about it. But when you type in something like www.shady.shady.foreign, and once again, we're going to see that this site might not even have to be shady or foreign. But when you type something like that in, there are servers in the United States that associate that with these servers that might be operated outside the United States. That associate this text with a number that points to this website, that points to this website's servers. So these are all things within the United States that, to some degree, this site is dependent on. So what SOPA does is it allows these actors here, the ones that are obviously concerned with enforcing their copyrights, to issue court orders and notices to these actors right over here. That essentially compels them very strongly to immediately cut off ties with this illegal site or what they think is an illegal site."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That associate this text with a number that points to this website, that points to this website's servers. So these are all things within the United States that, to some degree, this site is dependent on. So what SOPA does is it allows these actors here, the ones that are obviously concerned with enforcing their copyrights, to issue court orders and notices to these actors right over here. That essentially compels them very strongly to immediately cut off ties with this illegal site or what they think is an illegal site. Now, that might seem reasonable to you, except for the fact that it's kind of a shoot first and think later type of policy. The way it works is you presume guilt until this guy somehow tries to prove his innocence. And we'll see this guy isn't just necessarily sites outside the U.S."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That essentially compels them very strongly to immediately cut off ties with this illegal site or what they think is an illegal site. Now, that might seem reasonable to you, except for the fact that it's kind of a shoot first and think later type of policy. The way it works is you presume guilt until this guy somehow tries to prove his innocence. And we'll see this guy isn't just necessarily sites outside the U.S. It might even be completely legal, or what I would consider completely legal, sites inside the U.S. Essentially, as soon as this allegation is made and either a court order or notice is paid, these enablers have to cut off ties to this site. And you can imagine, if these cut off ties to this site, this site's business, whatever it might be, whether illegal or legal, immediately gets obliterated, especially this one here, including search engines, ad networks, and payments."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And we'll see this guy isn't just necessarily sites outside the U.S. It might even be completely legal, or what I would consider completely legal, sites inside the U.S. Essentially, as soon as this allegation is made and either a court order or notice is paid, these enablers have to cut off ties to this site. And you can imagine, if these cut off ties to this site, this site's business, whatever it might be, whether illegal or legal, immediately gets obliterated, especially this one here, including search engines, ad networks, and payments. And if they don't comply, then these guys are going to start having a legal battle. And so these guys are not only going to have to comply, and that by itself is hard, but if they don't comply, they themselves are going to be in trouble. Now, it gets really, obviously, creepy when you start going into..."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you can imagine, if these cut off ties to this site, this site's business, whatever it might be, whether illegal or legal, immediately gets obliterated, especially this one here, including search engines, ad networks, and payments. And if they don't comply, then these guys are going to start having a legal battle. And so these guys are not only going to have to comply, and that by itself is hard, but if they don't comply, they themselves are going to be in trouble. Now, it gets really, obviously, creepy when you start going into... So when you think of just the spirit, you're like, OK, maybe we can work around this a little bit. But it gets creepy when you, even though this is the spirit of the legislation, when you actually read the wording of the legislation. And obviously, that's what matters, not the name or the intent, but actually how it's worded."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, it gets really, obviously, creepy when you start going into... So when you think of just the spirit, you're like, OK, maybe we can work around this a little bit. But it gets creepy when you, even though this is the spirit of the legislation, when you actually read the wording of the legislation. And obviously, that's what matters, not the name or the intent, but actually how it's worded. And the way it's worded, it's pretty clear that its intent is to go after much more than just a site that's explicitly selling illegal pharmaceuticals or allowing people to download movies or music that these owners don't have access to. When you read the wording, it's pretty clear that they want to be able to shut down anything that isn't in any way associating with itself or in any way enabling it, and you see it in the wording. So this is actually section 103 of the SOPA legislation."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And obviously, that's what matters, not the name or the intent, but actually how it's worded. And the way it's worded, it's pretty clear that its intent is to go after much more than just a site that's explicitly selling illegal pharmaceuticals or allowing people to download movies or music that these owners don't have access to. When you read the wording, it's pretty clear that they want to be able to shut down anything that isn't in any way associating with itself or in any way enabling it, and you see it in the wording. So this is actually section 103 of the SOPA legislation. And this is how they define a site that is dedicated to theft of U.S. property. So an internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property if... And so, you know, it's usable by people in the United States. And then this is interesting."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is actually section 103 of the SOPA legislation. And this is how they define a site that is dedicated to theft of U.S. property. So an internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property if... And so, you know, it's usable by people in the United States. And then this is interesting. It's primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables or facilitates. Now this is interesting. Enables or facilitates all of these violations."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then this is interesting. It's primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables or facilitates. Now this is interesting. Enables or facilitates all of these violations. And these are the violations that would be, you know, illegal. You're selling things that you can't sell. You're infringing on other people's copyrights."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Enables or facilitates all of these violations. And these are the violations that would be, you know, illegal. You're selling things that you can't sell. You're infringing on other people's copyrights. And it might seem harmless, this enables or facilitates, until you think about what that could encapsulate. If I have a site, I guess I am part of a site, Khan Academy. Let's say someone puts a message on Khan Academy."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You're infringing on other people's copyrights. And it might seem harmless, this enables or facilitates, until you think about what that could encapsulate. If I have a site, I guess I am part of a site, Khan Academy. Let's say someone puts a message on Khan Academy. And from Khan Academy, they link to a site that actually is really illegal and that is really shady. They link to it in the message boards. Well, under this, am I enabling, is Khan Academy enabling or facilitating?"}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's say someone puts a message on Khan Academy. And from Khan Academy, they link to a site that actually is really illegal and that is really shady. They link to it in the message boards. Well, under this, am I enabling, is Khan Academy enabling or facilitating? And if that's the case, then Khan Academy, by this definition, would be considered to be a site that is dedicated to theft of U.S. property. And there are much bigger players than just Khan Academy that can be thrown into this bucket. Players like YouTube or Vimeo or any site or even a news site that allows people to put comments or allows people to put images, things like Flickr, that maybe in some way the user is infringing on the copyright."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, under this, am I enabling, is Khan Academy enabling or facilitating? And if that's the case, then Khan Academy, by this definition, would be considered to be a site that is dedicated to theft of U.S. property. And there are much bigger players than just Khan Academy that can be thrown into this bucket. Players like YouTube or Vimeo or any site or even a news site that allows people to put comments or allows people to put images, things like Flickr, that maybe in some way the user is infringing on the copyright. Now, all of a sudden, the whole site, based on this definition, the entire site can be defined as a site dedicated to theft of U.S. property. By this definition, YouTube could be that if it's viewed in kind of enabling or facilitating. Khan Academy, any news site could be viewed like that way."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Players like YouTube or Vimeo or any site or even a news site that allows people to put comments or allows people to put images, things like Flickr, that maybe in some way the user is infringing on the copyright. Now, all of a sudden, the whole site, based on this definition, the entire site can be defined as a site dedicated to theft of U.S. property. By this definition, YouTube could be that if it's viewed in kind of enabling or facilitating. Khan Academy, any news site could be viewed like that way. Vimeo could be viewed that way. A photo sharing site could be viewed that. People might take a photo of something they don't have the copyright to and upload an image."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Khan Academy, any news site could be viewed like that way. Vimeo could be viewed that way. A photo sharing site could be viewed that. People might take a photo of something they don't have the copyright to and upload an image. And all of a sudden, by this definition, based on just a sense that that's being violated, they won't just be able to shut down these blatantly illegal sites. They will be able to shut down things like YouTube or Vimeo or even things like CNN.com if someone puts a message or an image that they think is somehow violating. And so it's not just going right now the methodology is if there's some content on YouTube or Vimeo or some other site that they feel is infringing on their copyright."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "People might take a photo of something they don't have the copyright to and upload an image. And all of a sudden, by this definition, based on just a sense that that's being violated, they won't just be able to shut down these blatantly illegal sites. They will be able to shut down things like YouTube or Vimeo or even things like CNN.com if someone puts a message or an image that they think is somehow violating. And so it's not just going right now the methodology is if there's some content on YouTube or Vimeo or some other site that they feel is infringing on their copyright. There are laws where they contact YouTube directly. They point them to the content that seems to be infringing, and then YouTube or Vimeo or whoever will take down that content. But what this allows them to do is shoot first and think later."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so it's not just going right now the methodology is if there's some content on YouTube or Vimeo or some other site that they feel is infringing on their copyright. There are laws where they contact YouTube directly. They point them to the content that seems to be infringing, and then YouTube or Vimeo or whoever will take down that content. But what this allows them to do is shoot first and think later. Oh, look, you are enabling that. They can convince some court to give a court order. Even they can start giving notice to these players right over here to cut off ties with major, what I would consider very legal sites like YouTube or Vimeo or CNN."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what this allows them to do is shoot first and think later. Oh, look, you are enabling that. They can convince some court to give a court order. Even they can start giving notice to these players right over here to cut off ties with major, what I would consider very legal sites like YouTube or Vimeo or CNN. It's really almost any site that allows people to upload things onto it or put links on it, which is almost Facebook is another one. Anything that has user-generated content, on just a whim, they could take down the entire site, not just take down that user-generated content. They could, convincing just one judge or convincing just any of these, they can cut off ties with Facebook, not even making Facebook.com point to Facebook anymore."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Even they can start giving notice to these players right over here to cut off ties with major, what I would consider very legal sites like YouTube or Vimeo or CNN. It's really almost any site that allows people to upload things onto it or put links on it, which is almost Facebook is another one. Anything that has user-generated content, on just a whim, they could take down the entire site, not just take down that user-generated content. They could, convincing just one judge or convincing just any of these, they can cut off ties with Facebook, not even making Facebook.com point to Facebook anymore. CNN, they could just completely take down these sites on a whim. And it gets worse than that because you would say, well, if they're taking this down on a whim, and maybe they kind of thought it was, but they didn't do their homework, and they later realized that it wasn't copyright infringement, couldn't these guys sue back, although already the damage would have been done? These sites would have been taken down."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They could, convincing just one judge or convincing just any of these, they can cut off ties with Facebook, not even making Facebook.com point to Facebook anymore. CNN, they could just completely take down these sites on a whim. And it gets worse than that because you would say, well, if they're taking this down on a whim, and maybe they kind of thought it was, but they didn't do their homework, and they later realized that it wasn't copyright infringement, couldn't these guys sue back, although already the damage would have been done? These sites would have been taken down. They would have lost millions or billions of dollars, millions or tens or hundreds of millions of users would not be able to access these things. And this would also be true for Wikipedia. If someone uploaded something where it wasn't completely 100% vetted, they could take down the entire site, not just that content."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These sites would have been taken down. They would have lost millions or billions of dollars, millions or tens or hundreds of millions of users would not be able to access these things. And this would also be true for Wikipedia. If someone uploaded something where it wasn't completely 100% vetted, they could take down the entire site, not just that content. And you say, okay, that's bad enough, but couldn't these people say, hey, look, you wrongfully took us down. We're going to sue you now. Well, to see that they can't and to see how one-sided this legislation is, notice the threshold for being able to sue back if you kind of misrepresented a violation, the only way you're kind of held accountable is if you knowingly, materially misrepresented the violation."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If someone uploaded something where it wasn't completely 100% vetted, they could take down the entire site, not just that content. And you say, okay, that's bad enough, but couldn't these people say, hey, look, you wrongfully took us down. We're going to sue you now. Well, to see that they can't and to see how one-sided this legislation is, notice the threshold for being able to sue back if you kind of misrepresented a violation, the only way you're kind of held accountable is if you knowingly, materially misrepresented the violation. So if the copyright holder just says, oh, I think someone on YouTube, I feel pretty good that someone on YouTube is violating it, that YouTube is enabling a violation, and therefore YouTube is a site dedicated to theft of U.S. property, and later on it finds out that it wasn't, it was fair use, or maybe that person actually did have the copyright to it, they can't be sued because they said, oh, I just thought it was. They weren't knowingly, materially misrepresenting themselves. So even if it ends up not even being a violation, these guys could take the site down."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, to see that they can't and to see how one-sided this legislation is, notice the threshold for being able to sue back if you kind of misrepresented a violation, the only way you're kind of held accountable is if you knowingly, materially misrepresented the violation. So if the copyright holder just says, oh, I think someone on YouTube, I feel pretty good that someone on YouTube is violating it, that YouTube is enabling a violation, and therefore YouTube is a site dedicated to theft of U.S. property, and later on it finds out that it wasn't, it was fair use, or maybe that person actually did have the copyright to it, they can't be sued because they said, oh, I just thought it was. They weren't knowingly, materially misrepresenting themselves. So even if it ends up not even being a violation, these guys could take the site down. Maybe some small producer actually secured the rights, put it up on YouTube, and then all of a sudden these guys take down all of YouTube based on not actually knowing what they're talking about. And there can't even be a countersuit in that case based on the law. And it gets even creepier than that, because to be considered this, you don't even just have to enable or facilitate, which is almost anything."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So even if it ends up not even being a violation, these guys could take the site down. Maybe some small producer actually secured the rights, put it up on YouTube, and then all of a sudden these guys take down all of YouTube based on not actually knowing what they're talking about. And there can't even be a countersuit in that case based on the law. And it gets even creepier than that, because to be considered this, you don't even just have to enable or facilitate, which is almost anything. One could argue even a computer is enabling or facilitating this on some level. But you are considered to be a site dedicated to theft of U.S. property, even if you do nothing illegal, even if you don't even enable anything illegal, but if you just take actions that make it difficult for authorities to confirm that you're doing something illegal. So if you view this in the physical world, obviously some people are doing illegal things in their homes."}, {"video_title": "SOPA and PIPA   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it gets even creepier than that, because to be considered this, you don't even just have to enable or facilitate, which is almost anything. One could argue even a computer is enabling or facilitating this on some level. But you are considered to be a site dedicated to theft of U.S. property, even if you do nothing illegal, even if you don't even enable anything illegal, but if you just take actions that make it difficult for authorities to confirm that you're doing something illegal. So if you view this in the physical world, obviously some people are doing illegal things in their homes. And obviously a lot of people lock their doors to keep people out of their homes. And maybe people doing illegal things are even more likely to lock their doors and close their shutters. What this would do, and this would do it in the virtual sense, is say, look, just by taking the deliberate action of closing your shutters and locking your doors, which makes it hard for federal agents to confirm that you're doing illegal things, just by doing that, that itself is an illegal act."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Hey Kim. Hi David. So with the Republican National Convention coming up in just a couple of weeks as we're recording this, you thought it would be like a really good idea to sit down and examine the history of the Republican Party. So what's going on in the country in 1854 that leads to this party forming? Well, there are growing discussions over slavery and whether slavery should expand to the West. Now, all throughout the 19th century, the citizens of the United States had been kind of compromising on the issue of slavery. First, they had a line between North and South, said only slave states could be below this line."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what's going on in the country in 1854 that leads to this party forming? Well, there are growing discussions over slavery and whether slavery should expand to the West. Now, all throughout the 19th century, the citizens of the United States had been kind of compromising on the issue of slavery. First, they had a line between North and South, said only slave states could be below this line. Now, the Kansas-Nebraska Act overturns that compromise. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, which says that the citizens of a territory, when applying for statehood, can themselves decide whether or not that state should have slavery. So even though Kansas and Nebraska are north of this parallel in Missouri, above which slavery couldn't exist, this new law kind of overturns that agreement?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "First, they had a line between North and South, said only slave states could be below this line. Now, the Kansas-Nebraska Act overturns that compromise. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, which says that the citizens of a territory, when applying for statehood, can themselves decide whether or not that state should have slavery. So even though Kansas and Nebraska are north of this parallel in Missouri, above which slavery couldn't exist, this new law kind of overturns that agreement? Exactly. So a number of US citizens who are anti-slavery, which means that they don't want slavery to spread into Western territories, mainly because they want those territories free for white farmers to not have to compete with wealthy slaveholders who have free labor to farm and ship their goods and sell their crops. What about people that hate slavery and think it's immoral and wanna abolish it?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So even though Kansas and Nebraska are north of this parallel in Missouri, above which slavery couldn't exist, this new law kind of overturns that agreement? Exactly. So a number of US citizens who are anti-slavery, which means that they don't want slavery to spread into Western territories, mainly because they want those territories free for white farmers to not have to compete with wealthy slaveholders who have free labor to farm and ship their goods and sell their crops. What about people that hate slavery and think it's immoral and wanna abolish it? Those people are called abolitionists. That's a convenient name. Yes, and the abolitionists, really, before the 1850s, they were kind of considered the lunatic fringe."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What about people that hate slavery and think it's immoral and wanna abolish it? Those people are called abolitionists. That's a convenient name. Yes, and the abolitionists, really, before the 1850s, they were kind of considered the lunatic fringe. Only those sorts of people would imagine that you would want to end slavery right now everywhere that exists in the United States. So they don't wanna just not have slavery out in the West. They want slavery to be ended where it exists already in the South."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yes, and the abolitionists, really, before the 1850s, they were kind of considered the lunatic fringe. Only those sorts of people would imagine that you would want to end slavery right now everywhere that exists in the United States. So they don't wanna just not have slavery out in the West. They want slavery to be ended where it exists already in the South. So those who believed in abolition, those who believed in anti-slavery, went to a new party, the Republican Party. So even within the Republican Party, abolitionism was still on the fringe of the party plank? Yeah, I would say so."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They want slavery to be ended where it exists already in the South. So those who believed in abolition, those who believed in anti-slavery, went to a new party, the Republican Party. So even within the Republican Party, abolitionism was still on the fringe of the party plank? Yeah, I would say so. So the new Republican Party, which really comes out to an extremely strong start, they run their first candidate in 1856. He gets second place in the national election, which is amazing. But their second candidate for president is Abraham Lincoln."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, I would say so. So the new Republican Party, which really comes out to an extremely strong start, they run their first candidate in 1856. He gets second place in the national election, which is amazing. But their second candidate for president is Abraham Lincoln. And Lincoln himself is actually kind of considered a moderate because he is anti-slavery. He's not an abolitionist. But nonetheless, the South perceives Lincoln to be an abolitionist, and white Southerners revolt and start the Civil War."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But their second candidate for president is Abraham Lincoln. And Lincoln himself is actually kind of considered a moderate because he is anti-slavery. He's not an abolitionist. But nonetheless, the South perceives Lincoln to be an abolitionist, and white Southerners revolt and start the Civil War. So because he's perceived as an abolitionist because he is a Republican, that's why South Carolina secedes? Exactly. So the Civil War ensues."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But nonetheless, the South perceives Lincoln to be an abolitionist, and white Southerners revolt and start the Civil War. So because he's perceived as an abolitionist because he is a Republican, that's why South Carolina secedes? Exactly. So the Civil War ensues. This is a four-year-long battle. 620,000 Americans die. And at the end of the day, the North, the United States of America, led by the Republican Party, is victorious."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the Civil War ensues. This is a four-year-long battle. 620,000 Americans die. And at the end of the day, the North, the United States of America, led by the Republican Party, is victorious. So the victory of the United States in the Civil War kind of assures dominion of the Republican Party for a generation, right? Yeah, I would say even more than that. So for the rest of the 19th century, and really into the early 20th century, the Republican Party is the stronger political party in the United States."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And at the end of the day, the North, the United States of America, led by the Republican Party, is victorious. So the victory of the United States in the Civil War kind of assures dominion of the Republican Party for a generation, right? Yeah, I would say even more than that. So for the rest of the 19th century, and really into the early 20th century, the Republican Party is the stronger political party in the United States. So from the end of the Civil War, from 1865 until about when, would you say? I would say the Great Depression. So it's an almost unbroken string of Republican presidencies."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So for the rest of the 19th century, and really into the early 20th century, the Republican Party is the stronger political party in the United States. So from the end of the Civil War, from 1865 until about when, would you say? I would say the Great Depression. So it's an almost unbroken string of Republican presidencies. Yeah, there are only three Democratic presidents in this time period. So it's 72 years of pretty much uninterrupted Republican rule. And the Republican Party is the party of anti-slavery during the Civil War."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it's an almost unbroken string of Republican presidencies. Yeah, there are only three Democratic presidents in this time period. So it's 72 years of pretty much uninterrupted Republican rule. And the Republican Party is the party of anti-slavery during the Civil War. They're the party of the Emancipation Proclamation under Lincoln. So it's during their rule that the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, is passed. The 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal citizenship to African Americans, is passed."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the Republican Party is the party of anti-slavery during the Civil War. They're the party of the Emancipation Proclamation under Lincoln. So it's during their rule that the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, is passed. The 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal citizenship to African Americans, is passed. And the 15th Amendment, guaranteeing the right to vote for African Americans, is passed. So in the period immediately following the Civil War, called Reconstruction, is when we see the election of some of the first African American senators and representatives to the Congress. Exactly."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal citizenship to African Americans, is passed. And the 15th Amendment, guaranteeing the right to vote for African Americans, is passed. So in the period immediately following the Civil War, called Reconstruction, is when we see the election of some of the first African American senators and representatives to the Congress. Exactly. So during this time period, quite a few African American men were elected to U.S. Congress, and many more served in appointed roles, like postmaster. So this is when we get the election of Senator Hiram Revels from Mississippi. Exactly."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Exactly. So during this time period, quite a few African American men were elected to U.S. Congress, and many more served in appointed roles, like postmaster. So this is when we get the election of Senator Hiram Revels from Mississippi. Exactly. So Hiram Revels was one of the first two African American senators. So after the Civil War, the Republican Party was really kind of this party of the Gilded Age. They believed in modernizing the infrastructure of the United States, they built lots of railroads, they enacted policies that would protect American business, and it's really in this early period of the turn of the century that the Republican Party becomes associated with protections of business there."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Exactly. So Hiram Revels was one of the first two African American senators. So after the Civil War, the Republican Party was really kind of this party of the Gilded Age. They believed in modernizing the infrastructure of the United States, they built lots of railroads, they enacted policies that would protect American business, and it's really in this early period of the turn of the century that the Republican Party becomes associated with protections of business there. Is that what the elephant's about? Kind of, yes. So the elephant was popularized in an 1870 cartoon by Thomas Nast."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They believed in modernizing the infrastructure of the United States, they built lots of railroads, they enacted policies that would protect American business, and it's really in this early period of the turn of the century that the Republican Party becomes associated with protections of business there. Is that what the elephant's about? Kind of, yes. So the elephant was popularized in an 1870 cartoon by Thomas Nast. Oh, the same guy that gave us Santa Claus, right? Yes. And Nast depicted the Republican Party as an elephant because it was a party of strength, right?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the elephant was popularized in an 1870 cartoon by Thomas Nast. Oh, the same guy that gave us Santa Claus, right? Yes. And Nast depicted the Republican Party as an elephant because it was a party of strength, right? A really big, consequential party. That's so fascinating to have gone from this insurgency party to being perceived as the elephant of electoral politics in 30 years. Yeah, it's amazing."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Nast depicted the Republican Party as an elephant because it was a party of strength, right? A really big, consequential party. That's so fascinating to have gone from this insurgency party to being perceived as the elephant of electoral politics in 30 years. Yeah, it's amazing. Unfortunately, it kind of all comes crashing down with the Great Depression. Sure. So the pro-business policies, the lack of regulation in the 1920s leads to the stock market crash of 1929."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, it's amazing. Unfortunately, it kind of all comes crashing down with the Great Depression. Sure. So the pro-business policies, the lack of regulation in the 1920s leads to the stock market crash of 1929. And it was a Republican president, Herbert Hoover, who was in the presidency at the time of the crash. And so in 1932, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt is elected president, and the following 40 years, more or less, are going to be the time of Democratic ascendancy. But in the meantime, there is one notable Republican president."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the pro-business policies, the lack of regulation in the 1920s leads to the stock market crash of 1929. And it was a Republican president, Herbert Hoover, who was in the presidency at the time of the crash. And so in 1932, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt is elected president, and the following 40 years, more or less, are going to be the time of Democratic ascendancy. But in the meantime, there is one notable Republican president. Ike for president, Ike for president. I like Ike, you like Ike, everybody likes Ike. Ike for president."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But in the meantime, there is one notable Republican president. Ike for president, Ike for president. I like Ike, you like Ike, everybody likes Ike. Ike for president. So we're quoting one of Ike's campaign commercials. Who's Ike, Kim? And Ike was General Dwight Eisenhower, who was a World War II hero."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Ike for president. So we're quoting one of Ike's campaign commercials. Who's Ike, Kim? And Ike was General Dwight Eisenhower, who was a World War II hero. He was so popular, he would have been elected, had his... Could have been from the Martian Party, right? Yes. Like any party except the Communist Party would have propelled Eisenhower to the presidency."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Ike was General Dwight Eisenhower, who was a World War II hero. He was so popular, he would have been elected, had his... Could have been from the Martian Party, right? Yes. Like any party except the Communist Party would have propelled Eisenhower to the presidency. Yes, exactly. And you're right that one of the key themes of this time period was anti-communism. And both Republicans and Democrats had an anti-communist bent."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Like any party except the Communist Party would have propelled Eisenhower to the presidency. Yes, exactly. And you're right that one of the key themes of this time period was anti-communism. And both Republicans and Democrats had an anti-communist bent. But Eisenhower was elected in 1952, and he was really the first president to use commercial spots to get elected. He had these cute little jingles that were very memorable. So catchy."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And both Republicans and Democrats had an anti-communist bent. But Eisenhower was elected in 1952, and he was really the first president to use commercial spots to get elected. He had these cute little jingles that were very memorable. So catchy. And he really used the medium of television well, so he's kind of the father of TV ads. Yeah, it's interesting because I think we think of Kennedy as being the first television president, but I think we could both make the claim that it's really Eisenhower. That is a great point."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So catchy. And he really used the medium of television well, so he's kind of the father of TV ads. Yeah, it's interesting because I think we think of Kennedy as being the first television president, but I think we could both make the claim that it's really Eisenhower. That is a great point. So Eisenhower is kind of a Republican moment in a much larger Democratic era. And this is the era when the Civil Rights Movement happens. This is the era of the Great Society programs, which were Lyndon Johnson's programs to try to attack poverty, and New Deal programs."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That is a great point. So Eisenhower is kind of a Republican moment in a much larger Democratic era. And this is the era when the Civil Rights Movement happens. This is the era of the Great Society programs, which were Lyndon Johnson's programs to try to attack poverty, and New Deal programs. So this is really the birth of the welfare state. So in this time period, the Republicans begin to experience a demographic shift. So first, they had been the party that was most known for representing African-Americans because they were the party of Lincoln."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is the era of the Great Society programs, which were Lyndon Johnson's programs to try to attack poverty, and New Deal programs. So this is really the birth of the welfare state. So in this time period, the Republicans begin to experience a demographic shift. So first, they had been the party that was most known for representing African-Americans because they were the party of Lincoln. But during the New Deal, when most people really needed economic help, the African-American constituency moved over to the Democrats. They actually had a campaign saying to African-Americans, turn your picture of Abraham Lincoln to the wall so that he can't see you change parties. But this is really the time period when the Democratic Party begins to pick up the votes of African-Americans."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So first, they had been the party that was most known for representing African-Americans because they were the party of Lincoln. But during the New Deal, when most people really needed economic help, the African-American constituency moved over to the Democrats. They actually had a campaign saying to African-Americans, turn your picture of Abraham Lincoln to the wall so that he can't see you change parties. But this is really the time period when the Democratic Party begins to pick up the votes of African-Americans. And so over the course of the 1930s through the 1960s, as the Democratic Party begins to advocate bigger and bigger government, a larger welfare state, and more and more social progress, the Republicans develop a conservative response to that. And in the 1970s and 1980s, in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement, many whites in the South felt that the social chaos of the Civil Rights Movement had gone too far. And so they left the Democratic Party, which had been traditionally a party in the South, and joined the Republican Party, which was presenting a more conservative face towards social change."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But this is really the time period when the Democratic Party begins to pick up the votes of African-Americans. And so over the course of the 1930s through the 1960s, as the Democratic Party begins to advocate bigger and bigger government, a larger welfare state, and more and more social progress, the Republicans develop a conservative response to that. And in the 1970s and 1980s, in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement, many whites in the South felt that the social chaos of the Civil Rights Movement had gone too far. And so they left the Democratic Party, which had been traditionally a party in the South, and joined the Republican Party, which was presenting a more conservative face towards social change. And so in the 1980s, this new conservative movement really came together in the person of Ronald Reagan. And Ronald Reagan brought together a number of constituencies. He brought together business interests who wanted less government regulation of business."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so they left the Democratic Party, which had been traditionally a party in the South, and joined the Republican Party, which was presenting a more conservative face towards social change. And so in the 1980s, this new conservative movement really came together in the person of Ronald Reagan. And Ronald Reagan brought together a number of constituencies. He brought together business interests who wanted less government regulation of business. He also brought together Christian evangelicals who wanted a more conservative social value program in government. And he also brought together anti-communists who felt that the Democratic presidents had been too soft on communism during their tenure. So this is interesting to me, because it seems to be around the era of Reagan that we start to see the beginnings of ideological polarization within the parties."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He brought together business interests who wanted less government regulation of business. He also brought together Christian evangelicals who wanted a more conservative social value program in government. And he also brought together anti-communists who felt that the Democratic presidents had been too soft on communism during their tenure. So this is interesting to me, because it seems to be around the era of Reagan that we start to see the beginnings of ideological polarization within the parties. I would say that's kind of been around since the beginning, more or less. The two original political parties in the United States, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, or the Democratic Republicans, this is the party led by Thomas Jefferson versus the party led by Alexander Hamilton, they had this same idea of the large central government versus the small central government. In many ways, we're still debating the same issues that Hamilton and Jefferson were debating in 1800."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is interesting to me, because it seems to be around the era of Reagan that we start to see the beginnings of ideological polarization within the parties. I would say that's kind of been around since the beginning, more or less. The two original political parties in the United States, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, or the Democratic Republicans, this is the party led by Thomas Jefferson versus the party led by Alexander Hamilton, they had this same idea of the large central government versus the small central government. In many ways, we're still debating the same issues that Hamilton and Jefferson were debating in 1800. So OK, so we're seeing this conservative coalition coalesce around the election of Reagan. And his election was like a sweep, right? Yes."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In many ways, we're still debating the same issues that Hamilton and Jefferson were debating in 1800. So OK, so we're seeing this conservative coalition coalesce around the election of Reagan. And his election was like a sweep, right? Yes. Yeah, he deregulates a lot of industries. He defends conservative social family values, like prayer in school, for example. And he takes a very hard line against communism."}, {"video_title": "History of the Republican Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yes. Yeah, he deregulates a lot of industries. He defends conservative social family values, like prayer in school, for example. And he takes a very hard line against communism. And George W. Bush, who was the most recent Republican president, had a fairly similar agenda, although less emphasis on anti-communism and instead an emphasis on anti-terrorism. So we're seeing this shift over the last 150 years of party priorities for the Republicans as the country changes and as its demographics change. And we'll find out how the story of the Republican Party continues in this election."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But be very careful. This does not mean that every Democrat will have a stereotypically liberal view on every major issue, or that every Republican would have a stereotypically conservative view on every issue. We're all individuals, and many of us will have different opinions on these issues and might lean conservative on some and might lean liberal on others. But just to get a sense of what liberal and conservative tend to mean in the United States on issues that you will hear about, let's go through this list of issues. And I encourage you to pause this video and have your own go at what do you think would be the liberal or the conservative viewpoint on each of these issues. So let's start with arguably one of the most contentious issues in the United States, and that's of abortion. A liberal would view this as a reproductive rights issue."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But just to get a sense of what liberal and conservative tend to mean in the United States on issues that you will hear about, let's go through this list of issues. And I encourage you to pause this video and have your own go at what do you think would be the liberal or the conservative viewpoint on each of these issues. So let's start with arguably one of the most contentious issues in the United States, and that's of abortion. A liberal would view this as a reproductive rights issue. They view this as the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. So they tend to be pro the right of a woman to have an abortion, to choose to have an abortion, and will self-label themselves pro-choice. Conservatives, on the other hand, will often view this as a life issue, that they view the developing fetus as a life, and like any life, has certain rights."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A liberal would view this as a reproductive rights issue. They view this as the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. So they tend to be pro the right of a woman to have an abortion, to choose to have an abortion, and will self-label themselves pro-choice. Conservatives, on the other hand, will often view this as a life issue, that they view the developing fetus as a life, and like any life, has certain rights. And so they would typically be against abortion and would self-label themselves pro-life. Affirmative action is another contentious issue. This is the idea, and we've talked about it in other videos, that proactive measures should be taken in order to address wrongs of the past or in order to address inequality today or discrimination today."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Conservatives, on the other hand, will often view this as a life issue, that they view the developing fetus as a life, and like any life, has certain rights. And so they would typically be against abortion and would self-label themselves pro-life. Affirmative action is another contentious issue. This is the idea, and we've talked about it in other videos, that proactive measures should be taken in order to address wrongs of the past or in order to address inequality today or discrimination today. And it often takes form in can race be considered as a part of admissions into, say, higher education? Liberals tend to be in favor of affirmative action, while conservatives tend to be against it. The liberal point of view is, yes, we have a very unequal society, there's a lot of discrimination."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is the idea, and we've talked about it in other videos, that proactive measures should be taken in order to address wrongs of the past or in order to address inequality today or discrimination today. And it often takes form in can race be considered as a part of admissions into, say, higher education? Liberals tend to be in favor of affirmative action, while conservatives tend to be against it. The liberal point of view is, yes, we have a very unequal society, there's a lot of discrimination. Race should be considered a factor in order to ease that discrimination. A conservative today might argue, wait a second, we wanna be a racially blind society, and so we do not want race to be a factor. Guns is another very contentious issue."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The liberal point of view is, yes, we have a very unequal society, there's a lot of discrimination. Race should be considered a factor in order to ease that discrimination. A conservative today might argue, wait a second, we wanna be a racially blind society, and so we do not want race to be a factor. Guns is another very contentious issue. Liberals will often cite guns as a major factor in a lot of the crime and shootings in the United States, and they would tend to be pro-gun control. Conservatives, on the other hand, will often cite the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, and they would say, look, this isn't, when we see mass shootings or crime, it's not a gun issue, there's other issues at play. And so they would be more pro-gun rights."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Guns is another very contentious issue. Liberals will often cite guns as a major factor in a lot of the crime and shootings in the United States, and they would tend to be pro-gun control. Conservatives, on the other hand, will often cite the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, and they would say, look, this isn't, when we see mass shootings or crime, it's not a gun issue, there's other issues at play. And so they would be more pro-gun rights. They would generally be against gun control and want more rights for gun owners. On a related note, on crime, liberals tend to view it as a social issue. What are the underlying causes, say poverty or something else that is causing crime?"}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so they would be more pro-gun rights. They would generally be against gun control and want more rights for gun owners. On a related note, on crime, liberals tend to view it as a social issue. What are the underlying causes, say poverty or something else that is causing crime? They would also be very concerned with defendants' rights, citing examples where certain ethnic groups, certain races might be disproportionately accused or disproportionately punished. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to favor tougher policing and tougher laws, saying that, okay, it's interesting to look at the social issues, and yes, we do need certain rights, but at the end of the day, you don't wanna be too easy on crime, so tougher policing and tougher laws. Moving into the economic sphere, the liberal view on taxes is generally that it's okay, and some liberals will even view it as a tool for building social equality."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What are the underlying causes, say poverty or something else that is causing crime? They would also be very concerned with defendants' rights, citing examples where certain ethnic groups, certain races might be disproportionately accused or disproportionately punished. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to favor tougher policing and tougher laws, saying that, okay, it's interesting to look at the social issues, and yes, we do need certain rights, but at the end of the day, you don't wanna be too easy on crime, so tougher policing and tougher laws. Moving into the economic sphere, the liberal view on taxes is generally that it's okay, and some liberals will even view it as a tool for building social equality. They would say, hey, look, if someone's gotta pay for something, maybe it should be the rich. They can afford to pay more, and it'll help level the playing field a little bit. And so okay, especially on, and I'll put the rich in quotes because different people would have different standards for what it means to be rich."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Moving into the economic sphere, the liberal view on taxes is generally that it's okay, and some liberals will even view it as a tool for building social equality. They would say, hey, look, if someone's gotta pay for something, maybe it should be the rich. They can afford to pay more, and it'll help level the playing field a little bit. And so okay, especially on, and I'll put the rich in quotes because different people would have different standards for what it means to be rich. And conservatives generally are not okay with taxes. They would say that it is a disincentive to work. They would say that it's a friction on the economy."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so okay, especially on, and I'll put the rich in quotes because different people would have different standards for what it means to be rich. And conservatives generally are not okay with taxes. They would say that it is a disincentive to work. They would say that it's a friction on the economy. They would say that it would reduce investment that could create jobs. The liberal and conservative views on spending is related to that on taxes. A stereotypical view of liberals is that, hey, they might like to tax, especially on the rich, and then spend it, especially on social programs."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They would say that it's a friction on the economy. They would say that it would reduce investment that could create jobs. The liberal and conservative views on spending is related to that on taxes. A stereotypical view of liberals is that, hey, they might like to tax, especially on the rich, and then spend it, especially on social programs. Okay, especially on social programs, maybe welfare system or free healthcare. These would all be things that a liberal point of view would be more likely to support. A conservative viewpoint is not okay with government spending that the government should be as small as possible and spend as little as possible."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A stereotypical view of liberals is that, hey, they might like to tax, especially on the rich, and then spend it, especially on social programs. Okay, especially on social programs, maybe welfare system or free healthcare. These would all be things that a liberal point of view would be more likely to support. A conservative viewpoint is not okay with government spending that the government should be as small as possible and spend as little as possible. Perhaps the only exception or one of the few exceptions would be except on military spending, except on military, where a conservative might be in favor of more spending there in order to have a strong and muscular military. Now, related to this idea on the size of government is that of regulation. Liberals tend to be in favor of regulation, especially if they're in regards to things like preserving the environment."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A conservative viewpoint is not okay with government spending that the government should be as small as possible and spend as little as possible. Perhaps the only exception or one of the few exceptions would be except on military spending, except on military, where a conservative might be in favor of more spending there in order to have a strong and muscular military. Now, related to this idea on the size of government is that of regulation. Liberals tend to be in favor of regulation, especially if they're in regards to things like preserving the environment. Conservatives tend to be against regulation, saying that, okay, maybe some baseline regulation is okay, but it needs to be minimal, because the more regulations you have, once again, these are frictions on the economy. It makes it harder to start a business. It makes it harder to grow."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Liberals tend to be in favor of regulation, especially if they're in regards to things like preserving the environment. Conservatives tend to be against regulation, saying that, okay, maybe some baseline regulation is okay, but it needs to be minimal, because the more regulations you have, once again, these are frictions on the economy. It makes it harder to start a business. It makes it harder to grow. It makes it more expensive to do things. So they tend to be against regulation. Last but not least, and this is just a survey of some of the big issues you will hear about in the United States, is the military, and I already touched on it."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It makes it harder to grow. It makes it more expensive to do things. So they tend to be against regulation. Last but not least, and this is just a survey of some of the big issues you will hear about in the United States, is the military, and I already touched on it. A liberal is likely to want a military, but they would probably want something that does just the base services of what you would expect from a military. If people are invading our borders, that the military is there to protect us. So maybe we could call it basic, basic military."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Last but not least, and this is just a survey of some of the big issues you will hear about in the United States, is the military, and I already touched on it. A liberal is likely to want a military, but they would probably want something that does just the base services of what you would expect from a military. If people are invading our borders, that the military is there to protect us. So maybe we could call it basic, basic military. While a conservative would say, hey, you can't get complacent. Even if we're at a time of peace, even if people haven't crossed our borders in a long time, you don't know what's around the corner. Look at history."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So maybe we could call it basic, basic military. While a conservative would say, hey, you can't get complacent. Even if we're at a time of peace, even if people haven't crossed our borders in a long time, you don't know what's around the corner. Look at history. There's all sorts of complacent societies that eventually get overrun, and so they would want a strong and muscular military. And they'll make the argument that the stronger your military is, perhaps maybe the less likely that you would have to use it, because people would not even want to mess with you. They wouldn't even want to think about messing with you if you have a strong and muscular posture."}, {"video_title": "Ideologies of political parties in the United States   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Look at history. There's all sorts of complacent societies that eventually get overrun, and so they would want a strong and muscular military. And they'll make the argument that the stronger your military is, perhaps maybe the less likely that you would have to use it, because people would not even want to mess with you. They wouldn't even want to think about messing with you if you have a strong and muscular posture. So I'll leave you there on these general ideas. And once again, these are stereotypical views. You will meet many people, including yourself, who might have a mix of these views."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "All right, Kim, we have 216 years of Democratic Party history to cover. Let's cut the pleasantries and get right to it. Who is this man? That is Thomas Jefferson. He does not look like the baby-faced boy that he was in this image. Is this his presidential portrait? I believe so, yes."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That is Thomas Jefferson. He does not look like the baby-faced boy that he was in this image. Is this his presidential portrait? I believe so, yes. So, Thomas Jefferson, I think, is really interesting because he didn't set out to found a party, although he ended up doing so. It was more that he had a competing vision about what the United States should be that was different from the vision that was being promoted by some of the men who were in power early in the nation's history, like Washington, Adams, Alexander Hamilton. What is the difference between Jefferson and Hamilton's views on governance and how did this become the Democratic Party?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I believe so, yes. So, Thomas Jefferson, I think, is really interesting because he didn't set out to found a party, although he ended up doing so. It was more that he had a competing vision about what the United States should be that was different from the vision that was being promoted by some of the men who were in power early in the nation's history, like Washington, Adams, Alexander Hamilton. What is the difference between Jefferson and Hamilton's views on governance and how did this become the Democratic Party? Hamilton had an idea that he was going to try to make the government a little bit more centrist, so a strong central government. Remember, they've just switched to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation. What year was that?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What is the difference between Jefferson and Hamilton's views on governance and how did this become the Democratic Party? Hamilton had an idea that he was going to try to make the government a little bit more centrist, so a strong central government. Remember, they've just switched to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation. What year was that? 1787. Thank you. And Hamilton thinks that there needs to be a strong central government, a national bank, a kind of limited democracy, right?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What year was that? 1787. Thank you. And Hamilton thinks that there needs to be a strong central government, a national bank, a kind of limited democracy, right? A democracy that is limited to more educated, landed men. And he wants the United States to be a lot like England. And Jefferson and people who felt like Jefferson, like James Madison, were saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is not what we rebelled against England for to become England Part II."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Hamilton thinks that there needs to be a strong central government, a national bank, a kind of limited democracy, right? A democracy that is limited to more educated, landed men. And he wants the United States to be a lot like England. And Jefferson and people who felt like Jefferson, like James Madison, were saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is not what we rebelled against England for to become England Part II. Instead, what we should have is very expanded democracy, democracy for lots of people, doesn't matter their birth, and much more agrarian, state-focused, small government. And this is what we still call the Jeffersonian ideal. Exactly, yeah."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Jefferson and people who felt like Jefferson, like James Madison, were saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is not what we rebelled against England for to become England Part II. Instead, what we should have is very expanded democracy, democracy for lots of people, doesn't matter their birth, and much more agrarian, state-focused, small government. And this is what we still call the Jeffersonian ideal. Exactly, yeah. Small are republic, right? Citizens who are mainly farmers. Now, of course, the expanded democracy that Jefferson's thinking about doesn't apply to women or African Americans."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Exactly, yeah. Small are republic, right? Citizens who are mainly farmers. Now, of course, the expanded democracy that Jefferson's thinking about doesn't apply to women or African Americans. Jefferson himself was a slaveholder. But he didn't wanna limit governance to only the elite. So the Jeffersonian ideal is a republic for all land-holding citizens."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, of course, the expanded democracy that Jefferson's thinking about doesn't apply to women or African Americans. Jefferson himself was a slaveholder. But he didn't wanna limit governance to only the elite. So the Jeffersonian ideal is a republic for all land-holding citizens. Exactly. But in 1800, the idea of what citizen meant was very limited and blankered. So this doesn't really take root until the emergence of Andrew Jackson."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the Jeffersonian ideal is a republic for all land-holding citizens. Exactly. But in 1800, the idea of what citizen meant was very limited and blankered. So this doesn't really take root until the emergence of Andrew Jackson. In the late 1820s, he finally gets elected in 1832. So Jackson really pushes the idea of democracy for all white men to its farthest conclusion, which means that in this time period, he expanded the franchise to any white man, regardless of his property, which means that this is the most democracy in the history of the world up until this point. Yeah, but let me point out that you did say all white men."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this doesn't really take root until the emergence of Andrew Jackson. In the late 1820s, he finally gets elected in 1832. So Jackson really pushes the idea of democracy for all white men to its farthest conclusion, which means that in this time period, he expanded the franchise to any white man, regardless of his property, which means that this is the most democracy in the history of the world up until this point. Yeah, but let me point out that you did say all white men. Exactly. So Jackson is unabashedly a racist, and his vision of manifest destiny really involves the eradication of all Native Americans. I mean, this is a really dark time for American Indian policy."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, but let me point out that you did say all white men. Exactly. So Jackson is unabashedly a racist, and his vision of manifest destiny really involves the eradication of all Native Americans. I mean, this is a really dark time for American Indian policy. This is when we see something called the Indian Removal Act. That is literally what it's called. Jackson's presidency is also marked by the Cherokee diaspora, the forced removal of the Cherokee along what's called the Trail of Tears."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I mean, this is a really dark time for American Indian policy. This is when we see something called the Indian Removal Act. That is literally what it's called. Jackson's presidency is also marked by the Cherokee diaspora, the forced removal of the Cherokee along what's called the Trail of Tears. Yep. So, okay, so before Jackson, do we really have the Democratic Party as an institution? No, before this, we would have called this the Anti-Federalists or the Democratic Republicans."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Jackson's presidency is also marked by the Cherokee diaspora, the forced removal of the Cherokee along what's called the Trail of Tears. Yep. So, okay, so before Jackson, do we really have the Democratic Party as an institution? No, before this, we would have called this the Anti-Federalists or the Democratic Republicans. Okay, so Hamilton is a Federalist position, Jefferson is an Anti-Federalist. Right. So, okay, so we have these kicking around, but they're not parties in the same way that we would see them now."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "No, before this, we would have called this the Anti-Federalists or the Democratic Republicans. Okay, so Hamilton is a Federalist position, Jefferson is an Anti-Federalist. Right. So, okay, so we have these kicking around, but they're not parties in the same way that we would see them now. They're sort of policy positions? Yeah, I would say so. Having a mass political party was really an invention of the Jackson era."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So, okay, so we have these kicking around, but they're not parties in the same way that we would see them now. They're sort of policy positions? Yeah, I would say so. Having a mass political party was really an invention of the Jackson era. So one did not run for president in the early 1800s. One stood for president as gentlemen around you talked of your virtues, right? It wasn't a campaign."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Having a mass political party was really an invention of the Jackson era. So one did not run for president in the early 1800s. One stood for president as gentlemen around you talked of your virtues, right? It wasn't a campaign. Oh, so you couldn't actually campaign for yourself? Right, that was very uncouth. I see."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It wasn't a campaign. Oh, so you couldn't actually campaign for yourself? Right, that was very uncouth. I see. So Jackson is the real antidote to this. He creates massive democracy. The turnout in this time period is like 80, 90%, right?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I see. So Jackson is the real antidote to this. He creates massive democracy. The turnout in this time period is like 80, 90%, right? So everybody goes to vote. So, okay, so let's talk about this political cartoon. Well, it's really just making fun of Andrew Jackson for being incredibly stubborn."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The turnout in this time period is like 80, 90%, right? So everybody goes to vote. So, okay, so let's talk about this political cartoon. Well, it's really just making fun of Andrew Jackson for being incredibly stubborn. He vetoed everything because the position of the Democratic Party, which is founded with Jackson, he vetoes everything because he believes in small government. So he thinks that the power of the government should be negative, right? The less federal power, the better, which is interesting for a president, right?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, it's really just making fun of Andrew Jackson for being incredibly stubborn. He vetoed everything because the position of the Democratic Party, which is founded with Jackson, he vetoes everything because he believes in small government. So he thinks that the power of the government should be negative, right? The less federal power, the better, which is interesting for a president, right? So it's in this time period from probably this cartoon that we get the image of the donkey as the icon of the Democratic Party because Jackson, many believed, was a jackass. Oh. So the Democratic Party, as a party of all white men, ends up having a difficult relationship with slavery, which is the major issue of 19th century America."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The less federal power, the better, which is interesting for a president, right? So it's in this time period from probably this cartoon that we get the image of the donkey as the icon of the Democratic Party because Jackson, many believed, was a jackass. Oh. So the Democratic Party, as a party of all white men, ends up having a difficult relationship with slavery, which is the major issue of 19th century America. And the issue of slavery really ends up kind of breaking the Democratic Party apart because in the election of 1860, they actually split into the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats and run two different candidates for president. Whoa, why? I knew that the Whigs were split on slavery."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the Democratic Party, as a party of all white men, ends up having a difficult relationship with slavery, which is the major issue of 19th century America. And the issue of slavery really ends up kind of breaking the Democratic Party apart because in the election of 1860, they actually split into the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats and run two different candidates for president. Whoa, why? I knew that the Whigs were split on slavery. What split the Democrats on slavery? Slavery again. So the Southern Democrats really supported the expansion of slavery everywhere."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I knew that the Whigs were split on slavery. What split the Democrats on slavery? Slavery again. So the Southern Democrats really supported the expansion of slavery everywhere. The Northern Democrats were just trying to prevent the union from breaking up. So they were still pro-slavery but pro-union? Yes."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the Southern Democrats really supported the expansion of slavery everywhere. The Northern Democrats were just trying to prevent the union from breaking up. So they were still pro-slavery but pro-union? Yes. And that's why they only carried Missouri? When it says Douglas here, is that Stephen Douglas? That is Stephen Douglas, famous foe of Abraham Lincoln."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yes. And that's why they only carried Missouri? When it says Douglas here, is that Stephen Douglas? That is Stephen Douglas, famous foe of Abraham Lincoln. And Stephen Douglas actually died, I think, in 1861, which was a real shock for the Democratic Party because they lost their real major leader in the North. And so they are the minority party, as Abraham Lincoln and the first Republican leads the United States to victory in the Civil War. And so having been kind of the opposition party against the victorious party in war means that the Democrats are in a fairly bad political position, really, for most of the rest of the 19th century, right?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That is Stephen Douglas, famous foe of Abraham Lincoln. And Stephen Douglas actually died, I think, in 1861, which was a real shock for the Democratic Party because they lost their real major leader in the North. And so they are the minority party, as Abraham Lincoln and the first Republican leads the United States to victory in the Civil War. And so having been kind of the opposition party against the victorious party in war means that the Democrats are in a fairly bad political position, really, for most of the rest of the 19th century, right? Because this is the real Ascension era of the Republicans as they wave the bloody shirt. So the Republican Party bled to save the union. Exactly."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so having been kind of the opposition party against the victorious party in war means that the Democrats are in a fairly bad political position, really, for most of the rest of the 19th century, right? Because this is the real Ascension era of the Republicans as they wave the bloody shirt. So the Republican Party bled to save the union. Exactly. Okay. So that's your bloody shirt. That's my bloody shirt."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Exactly. Okay. So that's your bloody shirt. That's my bloody shirt. It's amazing. There it is. A little motion blur for you."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's my bloody shirt. It's amazing. There it is. A little motion blur for you. Of waving it, okay. I gotcha. So okay, so this rhetorical strategy of saying, hey, remember, the Republicans were the ones that saved the union, that basically makes the Democrats a rump party, right, for the rest of the 19th century."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A little motion blur for you. Of waving it, okay. I gotcha. So okay, so this rhetorical strategy of saying, hey, remember, the Republicans were the ones that saved the union, that basically makes the Democrats a rump party, right, for the rest of the 19th century. They're in bad shape. But they do have a few moments, especially in the late 19th century, there's a major economic depression. And remember, economic depression is never good for the party that's in power, right?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So okay, so this rhetorical strategy of saying, hey, remember, the Republicans were the ones that saved the union, that basically makes the Democrats a rump party, right, for the rest of the 19th century. They're in bad shape. But they do have a few moments, especially in the late 19th century, there's a major economic depression. And remember, economic depression is never good for the party that's in power, right? So in the panic of 1893, there's just major economic trouble. And in this time period, this is an important moment for the Democratic Party. All right, so Kim, who's this fella?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And remember, economic depression is never good for the party that's in power, right? So in the panic of 1893, there's just major economic trouble. And in this time period, this is an important moment for the Democratic Party. All right, so Kim, who's this fella? So this is William Jennings Bryan. Oh, I know him. And he's one of those guys who ran for president so many times but never actually won."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "All right, so Kim, who's this fella? So this is William Jennings Bryan. Oh, I know him. And he's one of those guys who ran for president so many times but never actually won. So we don't. Cross a gold speech, right? Exactly, right."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he's one of those guys who ran for president so many times but never actually won. So we don't. Cross a gold speech, right? Exactly, right. So he had this idea that the United States should move off the gold standard and instead allow silver as one of the currencies backing the US dollar. And the idea behind this was that then the money would flood into the economy and people would get wealthier and it would end this depression. And that's not how it happened."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Exactly, right. So he had this idea that the United States should move off the gold standard and instead allow silver as one of the currencies backing the US dollar. And the idea behind this was that then the money would flood into the economy and people would get wealthier and it would end this depression. And that's not how it happened. But what it does do is move the Democratic Party in a more populist direction, taking care of the smaller people who need more help financially, right? So a more interventionist economic policy. And so they want to kind of start helping the little guy with money."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's not how it happened. But what it does do is move the Democratic Party in a more populist direction, taking care of the smaller people who need more help financially, right? So a more interventionist economic policy. And so they want to kind of start helping the little guy with money. And you see this kind of in what we'd call the progressive era, which Wilson, who's gonna be the next Democratic president starting in 1912, he's a big champion of progressivism. And it's under Wilson's rule that the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote, is passed. So this is kind of anti-corruption, anti-monopoly, very pro trying to protect the consumer."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so they want to kind of start helping the little guy with money. And you see this kind of in what we'd call the progressive era, which Wilson, who's gonna be the next Democratic president starting in 1912, he's a big champion of progressivism. And it's under Wilson's rule that the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote, is passed. So this is kind of anti-corruption, anti-monopoly, very pro trying to protect the consumer. So this is where the sort of more liberal aspect of democratic monetary policy comes from. I don't wanna give the impression that progressivism and Wilson were 100% good things. On one hand, Wilson was the first Southern president."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is kind of anti-corruption, anti-monopoly, very pro trying to protect the consumer. So this is where the sort of more liberal aspect of democratic monetary policy comes from. I don't wanna give the impression that progressivism and Wilson were 100% good things. On one hand, Wilson was the first Southern president. He was a Virginian. Since the Civil War, after this era of waving the bloody shirt, and one of the things that Wilson does is he segregates federal jobs. So many African Americans who were working in the federal government were forced out under Wilson."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "On one hand, Wilson was the first Southern president. He was a Virginian. Since the Civil War, after this era of waving the bloody shirt, and one of the things that Wilson does is he segregates federal jobs. So many African Americans who were working in the federal government were forced out under Wilson. And don't forget that Wilson is the president who screened the pro-KKK film Birth of a Nation at the White House in 1915. Yeah. All right, and then World War I happened, and then the stock market crash happened."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So many African Americans who were working in the federal government were forced out under Wilson. And don't forget that Wilson is the president who screened the pro-KKK film Birth of a Nation at the White House in 1915. Yeah. All right, and then World War I happened, and then the stock market crash happened. Yeah, and the stock market crash happened under Republican rule, and it's never a good thing when your party's in power and there's a major economic downturn. Right, and that's during the Hoover administration. Exactly, before then."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "All right, and then World War I happened, and then the stock market crash happened. Yeah, and the stock market crash happened under Republican rule, and it's never a good thing when your party's in power and there's a major economic downturn. Right, and that's during the Hoover administration. Exactly, before then. And so it's after this economic crash that Franklin Delano Roosevelt comes into power. And now Roosevelt has this very liberal approach to economics, right? And this is where sort of contemporary modern American liberalism comes from, which is an idea that government should regulate the economy."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Exactly, before then. And so it's after this economic crash that Franklin Delano Roosevelt comes into power. And now Roosevelt has this very liberal approach to economics, right? And this is where sort of contemporary modern American liberalism comes from, which is an idea that government should regulate the economy. They shouldn't control the economy, but they should try to mediate some of these major swings that the economy could make. And also that government has a responsibility for the welfare of its people. So FDR implements the New Deal, which is a really sweeping set of social programs designed to try to get people out of their depression and guarantee a certain standard of living for all Americans."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is where sort of contemporary modern American liberalism comes from, which is an idea that government should regulate the economy. They shouldn't control the economy, but they should try to mediate some of these major swings that the economy could make. And also that government has a responsibility for the welfare of its people. So FDR implements the New Deal, which is a really sweeping set of social programs designed to try to get people out of their depression and guarantee a certain standard of living for all Americans. What are some of those programs from the New Deal that we still have today? Social security, I think, would be one of the biggest ones. That's a living wage for the elderly or the disabled."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So FDR implements the New Deal, which is a really sweeping set of social programs designed to try to get people out of their depression and guarantee a certain standard of living for all Americans. What are some of those programs from the New Deal that we still have today? Social security, I think, would be one of the biggest ones. That's a living wage for the elderly or the disabled. And the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which backs banks, for example. But what's interesting about this is that we often think of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party kind of having opposite stances on things. But the Democratic Party in this time period kind of had a liberal northern wing and then a southern conservative wing."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's a living wage for the elderly or the disabled. And the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which backs banks, for example. But what's interesting about this is that we often think of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party kind of having opposite stances on things. But the Democratic Party in this time period kind of had a liberal northern wing and then a southern conservative wing. So there are two kind of parts of the Democratic Party. So let's look at this map here. What is this solid south thing?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the Democratic Party in this time period kind of had a liberal northern wing and then a southern conservative wing. So there are two kind of parts of the Democratic Party. So let's look at this map here. What is this solid south thing? So this is the solid south. And the solid south is the Democratic pro-Jim Crow south. So there's the Democratic Party in the south, which is much smaller government, really wanted to make sure that African Americans were prevented from having political power in the south."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What is this solid south thing? So this is the solid south. And the solid south is the Democratic pro-Jim Crow south. So there's the Democratic Party in the south, which is much smaller government, really wanted to make sure that African Americans were prevented from having political power in the south. So it's interesting because African Americans after FDR really join the Democratic Party, but in the south, most of them can't vote. Right, it's a very uncomfortable alliance. So Kim, sorry, I thought that this part of the country, the Northeast, was still pretty solidly Republican at this time."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So there's the Democratic Party in the south, which is much smaller government, really wanted to make sure that African Americans were prevented from having political power in the south. So it's interesting because African Americans after FDR really join the Democratic Party, but in the south, most of them can't vote. Right, it's a very uncomfortable alliance. So Kim, sorry, I thought that this part of the country, the Northeast, was still pretty solidly Republican at this time. I would say that FDR puts together kind of a New Deal coalition of labor unions, ethnic and religious minorities, sort of the workers of the United States who want a more interventionist government economy, but don't necessarily want the moralizing aspect that goes along with say, like the progressive era, right? The progressives passed prohibition, for example, right? They thought it was morally bad to drink."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So Kim, sorry, I thought that this part of the country, the Northeast, was still pretty solidly Republican at this time. I would say that FDR puts together kind of a New Deal coalition of labor unions, ethnic and religious minorities, sort of the workers of the United States who want a more interventionist government economy, but don't necessarily want the moralizing aspect that goes along with say, like the progressive era, right? The progressives passed prohibition, for example, right? They thought it was morally bad to drink. And one of the first thing FDR does when he gets into office is to repeal prohibition saying, what America needs now is a drink, right? So it doesn't have this moral aspect, but it does have economic control. But the party continues to kind of move to the left on social issues."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They thought it was morally bad to drink. And one of the first thing FDR does when he gets into office is to repeal prohibition saying, what America needs now is a drink, right? So it doesn't have this moral aspect, but it does have economic control. But the party continues to kind of move to the left on social issues. And in the mid 1960s, Lyndon Johnson starts to pass civil rights legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and also pretty sweeping social programs, which you call like the Great Society. So this is things like Head Start and lots of welfare programs. And in this time period, along with the civil rights movement, the Democratic Party really coalesces around this group in the North who are more pro civil rights."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the party continues to kind of move to the left on social issues. And in the mid 1960s, Lyndon Johnson starts to pass civil rights legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and also pretty sweeping social programs, which you call like the Great Society. So this is things like Head Start and lots of welfare programs. And in this time period, along with the civil rights movement, the Democratic Party really coalesces around this group in the North who are more pro civil rights. So this period from FDR's election through Lyndon Johnson's administration is really kind of the democratic heyday in the United States. Save for Eisenhower, there is no other Republican president that's elected during this time period. So this is 30 plus years of democratic ascendancy."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And in this time period, along with the civil rights movement, the Democratic Party really coalesces around this group in the North who are more pro civil rights. So this period from FDR's election through Lyndon Johnson's administration is really kind of the democratic heyday in the United States. Save for Eisenhower, there is no other Republican president that's elected during this time period. So this is 30 plus years of democratic ascendancy. But it kind of comes apart in 1968. So what happens in 1968? Well, there's a lot of social unrest, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, many summer riots, and many whites in the South who had followed this democratic coalition here began to feel that the civil rights movement and the commitment of the Democratic Party to civil rights had gone too far, basically."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is 30 plus years of democratic ascendancy. But it kind of comes apart in 1968. So what happens in 1968? Well, there's a lot of social unrest, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, many summer riots, and many whites in the South who had followed this democratic coalition here began to feel that the civil rights movement and the commitment of the Democratic Party to civil rights had gone too far, basically. And there was the problem of Vietnam, the Vietnam War, which both parties were really strongly anti-communist in this time period. So many of the sort of young people who might otherwise have supported the Democratic Party began to feel that the Democratic Party too was part of this war machine that was just sending the United States' citizens to fight a war that they believed they had nothing to do with. So we're seeing this demographic shift then."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, there's a lot of social unrest, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, many summer riots, and many whites in the South who had followed this democratic coalition here began to feel that the civil rights movement and the commitment of the Democratic Party to civil rights had gone too far, basically. And there was the problem of Vietnam, the Vietnam War, which both parties were really strongly anti-communist in this time period. So many of the sort of young people who might otherwise have supported the Democratic Party began to feel that the Democratic Party too was part of this war machine that was just sending the United States' citizens to fight a war that they believed they had nothing to do with. So we're seeing this demographic shift then. Exactly. So this solid South, which had been voting Democratic because they had really complete political hegemony, because African Americans couldn't vote, now that African Americans can vote, many of those whites end up switching to the Republican Party. Interesting."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So we're seeing this demographic shift then. Exactly. So this solid South, which had been voting Democratic because they had really complete political hegemony, because African Americans couldn't vote, now that African Americans can vote, many of those whites end up switching to the Republican Party. Interesting. All right, so Johnson decides he's not even gonna run again. Right, because he knows he can't win because the Vietnam War has just tarnished him in the sight of most Americans. So with the Democrats really split apart in complete disarray, the Republicans take back the White House."}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Interesting. All right, so Johnson decides he's not even gonna run again. Right, because he knows he can't win because the Vietnam War has just tarnished him in the sight of most Americans. So with the Democrats really split apart in complete disarray, the Republicans take back the White House. So, okay, so Kim, that takes us up to about 1968 and the election of Nixon. And there's a lot of history of the Democratic Party. 216 years, right?"}, {"video_title": "History of the Democratic Party   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So with the Democrats really split apart in complete disarray, the Republicans take back the White House. So, okay, so Kim, that takes us up to about 1968 and the election of Nixon. And there's a lot of history of the Democratic Party. 216 years, right? Yep, it is the oldest voter-based political party in the world. So we can't fit the entire history into one video. No, there's too much."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Hi, this is Kim from Khan Academy, and today we're learning more about McDonald versus Chicago, a 2010 Supreme Court case challenging a handgun ban in the city of Chicago. The question at issue was whether the 14th Amendment's Due Process or Privileges or Immunities Clause means that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense is applicable to the states. Or, put more plainly, the Second Amendment says the federal government can't infringe on citizens' rights to keep and bear arms, but can state governments? To learn more about McDonald versus Chicago, I talked to two experts. Alan Gura is a lawyer who argued McDonald versus Chicago before the Supreme Court. Elizabeth Wydra is a Supreme Court litigator and the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center. So, Ms. Wydra, could you set the stage for us?"}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more about McDonald versus Chicago, I talked to two experts. Alan Gura is a lawyer who argued McDonald versus Chicago before the Supreme Court. Elizabeth Wydra is a Supreme Court litigator and the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center. So, Ms. Wydra, could you set the stage for us? Who were the challengers in this case, and why did they decide to sue? The lead plaintiff is, or was, Otis McDonald, then 76-year-old African-American retired maintenance engineer who lived in a part of Chicago and wanted to have a gun for self-defense, a handgun, to protect himself and his family and his home. He lived in a neighborhood that had grown increasingly troubled with gang and drug-related violence, and he felt that he wanted to have a handgun to protect his wife and his family after his home had been broken into several times."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So, Ms. Wydra, could you set the stage for us? Who were the challengers in this case, and why did they decide to sue? The lead plaintiff is, or was, Otis McDonald, then 76-year-old African-American retired maintenance engineer who lived in a part of Chicago and wanted to have a gun for self-defense, a handgun, to protect himself and his family and his home. He lived in a neighborhood that had grown increasingly troubled with gang and drug-related violence, and he felt that he wanted to have a handgun to protect his wife and his family after his home had been broken into several times. But because the city of Chicago had strict rules barring handguns, he and three other Chicago residents brought their case into court, asking the court to find that the individual right to keep and bear arms, including a handgun for self-defense in the home, that had been recognized just a few years earlier by the Supreme Court with respect to the federal government, also applies to the states and cities like Chicago. In 2008, the Supreme Court had held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to have guns for the purpose of self-defense. But that case took place in Washington, D.C., and Washington, D.C. is sort of a unique creature in our law."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He lived in a neighborhood that had grown increasingly troubled with gang and drug-related violence, and he felt that he wanted to have a handgun to protect his wife and his family after his home had been broken into several times. But because the city of Chicago had strict rules barring handguns, he and three other Chicago residents brought their case into court, asking the court to find that the individual right to keep and bear arms, including a handgun for self-defense in the home, that had been recognized just a few years earlier by the Supreme Court with respect to the federal government, also applies to the states and cities like Chicago. In 2008, the Supreme Court had held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to have guns for the purpose of self-defense. But that case took place in Washington, D.C., and Washington, D.C. is sort of a unique creature in our law. It's a federal city. It's not located in any particular state. And so everything that the city of Washington does is essentially done by the federal government or a unit of the federal government to which the Bill of Rights applies directly."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But that case took place in Washington, D.C., and Washington, D.C. is sort of a unique creature in our law. It's a federal city. It's not located in any particular state. And so everything that the city of Washington does is essentially done by the federal government or a unit of the federal government to which the Bill of Rights applies directly. But historically, the Bill of Rights was never thought to apply directly to limit what cities and states could do. So what were some of the competing interpretations that were at issue in this case? Well, there were a number of interpretations that were at issue."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so everything that the city of Washington does is essentially done by the federal government or a unit of the federal government to which the Bill of Rights applies directly. But historically, the Bill of Rights was never thought to apply directly to limit what cities and states could do. So what were some of the competing interpretations that were at issue in this case? Well, there were a number of interpretations that were at issue. The 14th Amendment has several parts to it. In the first section of the 14th Amendment, it states that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. And then it also says, among other things, that states can't deprive people of due process when it comes time to regulating their life, liberty, or property."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, there were a number of interpretations that were at issue. The 14th Amendment has several parts to it. In the first section of the 14th Amendment, it states that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. And then it also says, among other things, that states can't deprive people of due process when it comes time to regulating their life, liberty, or property. States may not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. When it comes to your basic civil rights, the question had always been whether or not the states are bound not to violate your civil rights because they are told not to abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizens, or are your rights not to be violated because the states can't deprive you of due process of law? So when the drafters of the 14th Amendment were coming together to think about what rights would be protected in the 14th Amendment, they looked at a lot of the abuses by state governments of key rights that had been previously protected against federal government action in the Bill of Rights."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then it also says, among other things, that states can't deprive people of due process when it comes time to regulating their life, liberty, or property. States may not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. When it comes to your basic civil rights, the question had always been whether or not the states are bound not to violate your civil rights because they are told not to abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizens, or are your rights not to be violated because the states can't deprive you of due process of law? So when the drafters of the 14th Amendment were coming together to think about what rights would be protected in the 14th Amendment, they looked at a lot of the abuses by state governments of key rights that had been previously protected against federal government action in the Bill of Rights. And when they were debating what rights would be included in these protections against state action, they talked repeatedly about the importance of the right to keep and bear arms. But the way they talked about it was very different from the way that we think about the 18th century revolutionary founders talking about the right to keep and bear arms. In that case, it was very much about the militia and preventing the tyranny of government action."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So when the drafters of the 14th Amendment were coming together to think about what rights would be protected in the 14th Amendment, they looked at a lot of the abuses by state governments of key rights that had been previously protected against federal government action in the Bill of Rights. And when they were debating what rights would be included in these protections against state action, they talked repeatedly about the importance of the right to keep and bear arms. But the way they talked about it was very different from the way that we think about the 18th century revolutionary founders talking about the right to keep and bear arms. In that case, it was very much about the militia and preventing the tyranny of government action. In the 14th Amendment context, the right to keep and bear arms was very much an individual right. They were concerned about freed persons being subject to white militia violence and being able to protect themselves with a gun in their house. And so that was really one of the ways in which they wanted to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms, different from the way that I think the founders thought about it when they were drafting the Second Amendment."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In that case, it was very much about the militia and preventing the tyranny of government action. In the 14th Amendment context, the right to keep and bear arms was very much an individual right. They were concerned about freed persons being subject to white militia violence and being able to protect themselves with a gun in their house. And so that was really one of the ways in which they wanted to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms, different from the way that I think the founders thought about it when they were drafting the Second Amendment. Yeah, this is a really interesting point because you can kind of see how these things evolve over time and particularly in the 1860s after the Civil War, there are many local or state statutes known as the Black Codes that specifically prevented newly free African-Americans from owning firearms or any kind of weapon. Exactly, and that was a concern because, one, it was a right that they considered to be a right of citizenship, but two, and more practically and more immediately of concern for the people who were being targeted by this racial violence, it was something that was a question of life or death for them. And the debates on this by the drafters of the 14th Amendment were very clear and very colorful."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so that was really one of the ways in which they wanted to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms, different from the way that I think the founders thought about it when they were drafting the Second Amendment. Yeah, this is a really interesting point because you can kind of see how these things evolve over time and particularly in the 1860s after the Civil War, there are many local or state statutes known as the Black Codes that specifically prevented newly free African-Americans from owning firearms or any kind of weapon. Exactly, and that was a concern because, one, it was a right that they considered to be a right of citizenship, but two, and more practically and more immediately of concern for the people who were being targeted by this racial violence, it was something that was a question of life or death for them. And the debates on this by the drafters of the 14th Amendment were very clear and very colorful. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described how indispensable the right to keep and bear arms was and how important it was that the 14th Amendment protects that right. He said during the debates, every man should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, whereas wretchedness will forever remain complete."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the debates on this by the drafters of the 14th Amendment were very clear and very colorful. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described how indispensable the right to keep and bear arms was and how important it was that the 14th Amendment protects that right. He said during the debates, every man should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, whereas wretchedness will forever remain complete. So going back to the McDonald case, how did the court rule in this case? In McDonald, we made two arguments for why we should win. The first argument we made was the historically more obvious one, although it's one that the courts had not often entertained."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, whereas wretchedness will forever remain complete. So going back to the McDonald case, how did the court rule in this case? In McDonald, we made two arguments for why we should win. The first argument we made was the historically more obvious one, although it's one that the courts had not often entertained. And that's the argument that says that when the 14th Amendment provided that the people cannot be deprived of the privileges or immunities of American citizenship, that means they couldn't be deprived of their basic fundamental rights. Right there in the text of the 14th Amendment, it tells you that you can't be deprived of the rights of American citizenship. Secondly, we made the argument that, and this is the argument that the courts have been more open to over the years."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The first argument we made was the historically more obvious one, although it's one that the courts had not often entertained. And that's the argument that says that when the 14th Amendment provided that the people cannot be deprived of the privileges or immunities of American citizenship, that means they couldn't be deprived of their basic fundamental rights. Right there in the text of the 14th Amendment, it tells you that you can't be deprived of the rights of American citizenship. Secondly, we made the argument that, and this is the argument that the courts have been more open to over the years. We made the argument that where the state is prohibited from depriving Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents of due process of law, you can't deprive someone of due process. That means not just that the state can't do things arbitrarily, not just that Otis McDonald is entitled to some procedural protections in the way that he's regulated, but also that there are some results, some things that simply cannot be done. And taking away someone's firearms in violation of the Second Amendment rights is not something that the state can do."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Secondly, we made the argument that, and this is the argument that the courts have been more open to over the years. We made the argument that where the state is prohibited from depriving Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents of due process of law, you can't deprive someone of due process. That means not just that the state can't do things arbitrarily, not just that Otis McDonald is entitled to some procedural protections in the way that he's regulated, but also that there are some results, some things that simply cannot be done. And taking away someone's firearms in violation of the Second Amendment rights is not something that the state can do. There's no procedure that the state could create to achieve that, they would still be considered to be giving somebody due process of law. So the court said, what we have done when we've looked at individual rights under the 14th Amendment, and whether or not original Bill of Rights rights that were initially understood to limit the federal government applied to the states, is look at whether or not they are part of what we generally talk about as fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty. Or stated another way, the question is whether the right is firmly rooted in this nation's history and tradition."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And taking away someone's firearms in violation of the Second Amendment rights is not something that the state can do. There's no procedure that the state could create to achieve that, they would still be considered to be giving somebody due process of law. So the court said, what we have done when we've looked at individual rights under the 14th Amendment, and whether or not original Bill of Rights rights that were initially understood to limit the federal government applied to the states, is look at whether or not they are part of what we generally talk about as fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty. Or stated another way, the question is whether the right is firmly rooted in this nation's history and tradition. And when they looked at that question with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, they looked at a lot of the reconstruction history and said this was clearly something that the drafters of the 14th Amendment considered to be very fundamental to ordered liberty and thought that indeed the freed men, the African American people of the South who had been subject to the slave power, and people across the country who had been subject to discrimination from the states, should be able to look to the constitution to protect the right to keep and bear arms as their individual right, just as the court had held in the Heller case, they could be able to look to the constitution for protection of that right against the federal government. So in the McDonald case, how did the majority of the court rule? The justices broke down in multiple different ways."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or stated another way, the question is whether the right is firmly rooted in this nation's history and tradition. And when they looked at that question with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, they looked at a lot of the reconstruction history and said this was clearly something that the drafters of the 14th Amendment considered to be very fundamental to ordered liberty and thought that indeed the freed men, the African American people of the South who had been subject to the slave power, and people across the country who had been subject to discrimination from the states, should be able to look to the constitution to protect the right to keep and bear arms as their individual right, just as the court had held in the Heller case, they could be able to look to the constitution for protection of that right against the federal government. So in the McDonald case, how did the majority of the court rule? The justices broke down in multiple different ways. There were four justices led by Justice Alito, who refused to look any further at the privileges or immunities clause. They thought it was old, it was water under the bridge. They were not interested in looking to see whether or not the court's erasing of that provision was legitimate, even it's widely agreed to be illegitimate today, but the court didn't wanna go there."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The justices broke down in multiple different ways. There were four justices led by Justice Alito, who refused to look any further at the privileges or immunities clause. They thought it was old, it was water under the bridge. They were not interested in looking to see whether or not the court's erasing of that provision was legitimate, even it's widely agreed to be illegitimate today, but the court didn't wanna go there. And instead, those four justices led by Justice Alito held that the due process clause incorporates the second amendment right to keep and bear arms as against the states because it is a fundamental right. It's deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions. It's something that's very basic to our understanding of our civil and political institutions."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They were not interested in looking to see whether or not the court's erasing of that provision was legitimate, even it's widely agreed to be illegitimate today, but the court didn't wanna go there. And instead, those four justices led by Justice Alito held that the due process clause incorporates the second amendment right to keep and bear arms as against the states because it is a fundamental right. It's deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions. It's something that's very basic to our understanding of our civil and political institutions. The four justices thought the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. So there was actually a debate among the members of the majority who all believed that there was a right to have a handgun in the house for self-defense that was protected against state and local government regulations. But Justice Thomas would have found that right through another means."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's something that's very basic to our understanding of our civil and political institutions. The four justices thought the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. So there was actually a debate among the members of the majority who all believed that there was a right to have a handgun in the house for self-defense that was protected against state and local government regulations. But Justice Thomas would have found that right through another means. He would have looked at the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment. Instead of the now accepted method of looking at the due process liberty clause of the 14th amendment, which is how these other provisions of the bill of rights have been incorporated against the states. There were many arguments, including I should say, a brief that I filed on behalf of scholars from across the ideological spectrum, who said that in fact, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment is the part of that constitutional amendment that was intended to protect this particular substantive right, as well as the other substantive rights of the bill of rights against state infringement."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But Justice Thomas would have found that right through another means. He would have looked at the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment. Instead of the now accepted method of looking at the due process liberty clause of the 14th amendment, which is how these other provisions of the bill of rights have been incorporated against the states. There were many arguments, including I should say, a brief that I filed on behalf of scholars from across the ideological spectrum, who said that in fact, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment is the part of that constitutional amendment that was intended to protect this particular substantive right, as well as the other substantive rights of the bill of rights against state infringement. Justice Thomas's concurrence did not get any other votes, whether from the people who were against the right to keep and bear arms or those who didn't. But it is an important contribution to thinking about how we understand rights and where they are protected in the constitution. Justice Thomas's opinion in McDonald is groundbreaking."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There were many arguments, including I should say, a brief that I filed on behalf of scholars from across the ideological spectrum, who said that in fact, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment is the part of that constitutional amendment that was intended to protect this particular substantive right, as well as the other substantive rights of the bill of rights against state infringement. Justice Thomas's concurrence did not get any other votes, whether from the people who were against the right to keep and bear arms or those who didn't. But it is an important contribution to thinking about how we understand rights and where they are protected in the constitution. Justice Thomas's opinion in McDonald is groundbreaking. It represents the first time since 1868, that the original meaning of the 14th amendments, privileges or immunities clause, the basic protection that we have for civil rights in this country against state and local governments was decisive in a case at the Supreme Court. It's been that long since a true original understanding of the 14th amendments language has finally proven to be decisive. There were of course, justices who thought that there is not an individual right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Justice Thomas's opinion in McDonald is groundbreaking. It represents the first time since 1868, that the original meaning of the 14th amendments, privileges or immunities clause, the basic protection that we have for civil rights in this country against state and local governments was decisive in a case at the Supreme Court. It's been that long since a true original understanding of the 14th amendments language has finally proven to be decisive. There were of course, justices who thought that there is not an individual right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense. These were the same justices, not surprisingly, who thought that there wasn't a second amendment right to be protected against federal government action to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. They would have thought that this was much more a right in the second amendment context that had to do with militia service, military service, and therefore it did not extend to an individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense. McDonald's really a 14th amendment case."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There were of course, justices who thought that there is not an individual right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense. These were the same justices, not surprisingly, who thought that there wasn't a second amendment right to be protected against federal government action to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. They would have thought that this was much more a right in the second amendment context that had to do with militia service, military service, and therefore it did not extend to an individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense. McDonald's really a 14th amendment case. I mean, guns happened to be the thing that was in it, but I'd always seen primarily as a 14th amendment case. It's not really a case that tells you anything about the scope of the second amendment. In fact, it doesn't say anything about the scope of the second, it's very little."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "McDonald's really a 14th amendment case. I mean, guns happened to be the thing that was in it, but I'd always seen primarily as a 14th amendment case. It's not really a case that tells you anything about the scope of the second amendment. In fact, it doesn't say anything about the scope of the second, it's very little. There are many issues left to be resolved in the second amendment context. The Heller case itself, which first articulated that there was a right for individuals to keep and bear arms in their homes for self-defense, made clear that it wasn't saying that there could be no gun regulation. That case, even though it was written by Justice Scalia, and certainly in the McDonald case, Justice Alito's majority opinion reiterated this, said that while there were certain laws that would be struck down as unconstitutional because they prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, they recognized at the same time that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, it doesn't say anything about the scope of the second, it's very little. There are many issues left to be resolved in the second amendment context. The Heller case itself, which first articulated that there was a right for individuals to keep and bear arms in their homes for self-defense, made clear that it wasn't saying that there could be no gun regulation. That case, even though it was written by Justice Scalia, and certainly in the McDonald case, Justice Alito's majority opinion reiterated this, said that while there were certain laws that would be struck down as unconstitutional because they prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, they recognized at the same time that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. So given that the court itself, and even very conservative justices, recognized that there could be, and perhaps should be, common sense limitations on both the types of guns that are allowed, the manner in which they are allowed, and where they can be taken, and in what manner, then a lot of the gun regulations that are being passed are still very much part of the constitutional debate. We've seen, frankly, most of the laws thus far be upheld as constitutional laws that, for example, target assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and certain licensing and registration requirements. So I think we will see more cases to define the contours of the individual right to keep and bear arms as these gun regulations get passed and as the courts get to pass upon their constitutionality."}, {"video_title": "McDonald v. Chicago   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That case, even though it was written by Justice Scalia, and certainly in the McDonald case, Justice Alito's majority opinion reiterated this, said that while there were certain laws that would be struck down as unconstitutional because they prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, they recognized at the same time that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. So given that the court itself, and even very conservative justices, recognized that there could be, and perhaps should be, common sense limitations on both the types of guns that are allowed, the manner in which they are allowed, and where they can be taken, and in what manner, then a lot of the gun regulations that are being passed are still very much part of the constitutional debate. We've seen, frankly, most of the laws thus far be upheld as constitutional laws that, for example, target assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and certain licensing and registration requirements. So I think we will see more cases to define the contours of the individual right to keep and bear arms as these gun regulations get passed and as the courts get to pass upon their constitutionality. So we've learned that the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's due process clause that no state can deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process of law did incorporate the Second Amendment into the states under the reasoning that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty. According to Alan Gura, even though this case was about guns, it was really a 14th Amendment case concerning whether states can restrict citizens' liberty. Elizabeth Weidra, however, cautions that the decision in McDonald didn't preclude any restriction on gun ownership, and she suspects that new cases will continue to define the individual right to keep and bear arms."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The question at issue in this case was whether the state of Maryland could tax the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, and whether Congress even had the power to create a Bank of the United States in the first place. To learn more, I sought out the help of two experts. Randy Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center and Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Neil Siegel is the David W. Eichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at Duke Law School. So, Professor Barnett, could you kinda set the stage for us? What was happening in this case? What was the overall context?"}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Neil Siegel is the David W. Eichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at Duke Law School. So, Professor Barnett, could you kinda set the stage for us? What was happening in this case? What was the overall context? Well, McCulloch versus Maryland was a culmination of a 30-year-old constitutional controversy. In fact, it was the culmination of one of the earliest controversies that we had in the country, and that is over whether Congress had the power to establish a national bank, a bank that would be a corporation formed by Congress and which would have certain privileges that Congress granted it. This was a proposal that had been made by Alexander Hamilton when he was Secretary of the Treasury in the Washington administration in the very first year of the Washington administration, and it went to Congress."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What was the overall context? Well, McCulloch versus Maryland was a culmination of a 30-year-old constitutional controversy. In fact, it was the culmination of one of the earliest controversies that we had in the country, and that is over whether Congress had the power to establish a national bank, a bank that would be a corporation formed by Congress and which would have certain privileges that Congress granted it. This was a proposal that had been made by Alexander Hamilton when he was Secretary of the Treasury in the Washington administration in the very first year of the Washington administration, and it went to Congress. And there was a very, very robust debate in Congress as to whether this measure was within the powers of Congress to enact. Eventually, Congress voted that it was. And then, before he signed the bill, President Washington asked some of his cabinet members to give him their opinion on whether it was constitutional."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This was a proposal that had been made by Alexander Hamilton when he was Secretary of the Treasury in the Washington administration in the very first year of the Washington administration, and it went to Congress. And there was a very, very robust debate in Congress as to whether this measure was within the powers of Congress to enact. Eventually, Congress voted that it was. And then, before he signed the bill, President Washington asked some of his cabinet members to give him their opinion on whether it was constitutional. And he heard from several of his cabinet members, he heard from his Attorney General, Edmund Randolph. He said it was unconstitutional. He heard from his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then, before he signed the bill, President Washington asked some of his cabinet members to give him their opinion on whether it was constitutional. And he heard from several of his cabinet members, he heard from his Attorney General, Edmund Randolph. He said it was unconstitutional. He heard from his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson said it was unconstitutional. And finally, he heard from his Secretary of Treasury, who had proposed it, Alexander Hamilton, who said it was constitutional. And Washington signed the bill, and it became law, and it established the first national bank of the United States."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He heard from his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson said it was unconstitutional. And finally, he heard from his Secretary of Treasury, who had proposed it, Alexander Hamilton, who said it was constitutional. And Washington signed the bill, and it became law, and it established the first national bank of the United States. This case arose in May of 1818, when Maryland sued McCulloch, and he was the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank. And Maryland sued him in state court to recover a tax assessed by Maryland on the bank. And this was a time of intense hostility toward the national bank in a number of states."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Washington signed the bill, and it became law, and it established the first national bank of the United States. This case arose in May of 1818, when Maryland sued McCulloch, and he was the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank. And Maryland sued him in state court to recover a tax assessed by Maryland on the bank. And this was a time of intense hostility toward the national bank in a number of states. The state banks competed with the national bank, and there had been an economic panic in 1818 when the US bank called in its loans and state banks that had loans from the federal bank were crippled, and in response, a number of states passed nearly annihilative taxes on the federal bank, and that's the environment in which, in 1819, McCulloch against Maryland came before the Supreme Court. I find this very interesting, because this is something that we talk a lot about in the early 19th century, the Bank of the United States, and what was good about it and what was bad about it. And there are certain people who were certainly enemies of the bank, like Thomas Jefferson, and then later, Andrew Jackson."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this was a time of intense hostility toward the national bank in a number of states. The state banks competed with the national bank, and there had been an economic panic in 1818 when the US bank called in its loans and state banks that had loans from the federal bank were crippled, and in response, a number of states passed nearly annihilative taxes on the federal bank, and that's the environment in which, in 1819, McCulloch against Maryland came before the Supreme Court. I find this very interesting, because this is something that we talk a lot about in the early 19th century, the Bank of the United States, and what was good about it and what was bad about it. And there are certain people who were certainly enemies of the bank, like Thomas Jefferson, and then later, Andrew Jackson. Why did people object to the Bank of the United States so much? Yeah, there were a variety of objections. There was a real political policy disagreement about whether it was a good idea."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there are certain people who were certainly enemies of the bank, like Thomas Jefferson, and then later, Andrew Jackson. Why did people object to the Bank of the United States so much? Yeah, there were a variety of objections. There was a real political policy disagreement about whether it was a good idea. Hamilton had a nation-building, economy-building objective as the first Secretary of the Treasury. He wanted to pay off both the national debt and the state debts from the Revolutionary War, which remained unpaid. He was emphasizing manufacturing and commerce, and a national bank was a key part of his plan."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There was a real political policy disagreement about whether it was a good idea. Hamilton had a nation-building, economy-building objective as the first Secretary of the Treasury. He wanted to pay off both the national debt and the state debts from the Revolutionary War, which remained unpaid. He was emphasizing manufacturing and commerce, and a national bank was a key part of his plan. The bank would make it easier for the national government to raise taxes, to pay off debts, to make payments, to obtain short-term loans. The notes issued by the bank could function as a national currency. It could also provide a source of capital for financing businesses."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He was emphasizing manufacturing and commerce, and a national bank was a key part of his plan. The bank would make it easier for the national government to raise taxes, to pay off debts, to make payments, to obtain short-term loans. The notes issued by the bank could function as a national currency. It could also provide a source of capital for financing businesses. But the opponents had different ideas. One of the leading opponents in Congress was James Madison, who at the time was a representative from Orange County, Virginia. And what concerned him, and I think what's concerned many people, was that there was no expressed enumerated power in the Constitution for Congress to make a bank."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It could also provide a source of capital for financing businesses. But the opponents had different ideas. One of the leading opponents in Congress was James Madison, who at the time was a representative from Orange County, Virginia. And what concerned him, and I think what's concerned many people, was that there was no expressed enumerated power in the Constitution for Congress to make a bank. There was an enumerated power to create a post office, but there was no enumerated power to create a bank. So the question is whether the failure, or the silence of the Constitution on whether there was this power should be construed in favor of having such a power or not having such a power. And Madison's concern was that to imply such a power, especially when the way in which it was being applied was very remotely connected to one of the enumerated powers that were in the Constitution, was very dangerous."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what concerned him, and I think what's concerned many people, was that there was no expressed enumerated power in the Constitution for Congress to make a bank. There was an enumerated power to create a post office, but there was no enumerated power to create a bank. So the question is whether the failure, or the silence of the Constitution on whether there was this power should be construed in favor of having such a power or not having such a power. And Madison's concern was that to imply such a power, especially when the way in which it was being applied was very remotely connected to one of the enumerated powers that were in the Constitution, was very dangerous. Because by that form of reasoning, Congress could essentially do whatever it wished, and that would violate the basic pledge that this was going to be a national government of limited and enumerated powers. So in Congress, what was the power that proponents of the bank used to justify passing it? The principal power that they used is called the necessary and proper clause."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Madison's concern was that to imply such a power, especially when the way in which it was being applied was very remotely connected to one of the enumerated powers that were in the Constitution, was very dangerous. Because by that form of reasoning, Congress could essentially do whatever it wished, and that would violate the basic pledge that this was going to be a national government of limited and enumerated powers. So in Congress, what was the power that proponents of the bank used to justify passing it? The principal power that they used is called the necessary and proper clause. The necessary and proper clause says, Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution its foregoing powers, those powers on the list, and all other powers vested by the Constitution and the government of the United States or any department or officer thereof. This is called the necessary and proper clause. It allows for Congress to make laws incidental to the enumerated powers to effectuate or carry into execution those powers."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The principal power that they used is called the necessary and proper clause. The necessary and proper clause says, Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution its foregoing powers, those powers on the list, and all other powers vested by the Constitution and the government of the United States or any department or officer thereof. This is called the necessary and proper clause. It allows for Congress to make laws incidental to the enumerated powers to effectuate or carry into execution those powers. And supporters of the bill said that the bank carried into execution a number of powers. It carried into execution the taxing power, carried into execution the commerce power. The opponents of the bank said, well, it may do that, but it only does that in a very attenuated way."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It allows for Congress to make laws incidental to the enumerated powers to effectuate or carry into execution those powers. And supporters of the bill said that the bank carried into execution a number of powers. It carried into execution the taxing power, carried into execution the commerce power. The opponents of the bank said, well, it may do that, but it only does that in a very attenuated way. And therefore, if it can do this in order to effectuate that power, then it pretty much can do anything to effectuate a power. And therefore, it can pretty much do anything. And that's a big problem."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The opponents of the bank said, well, it may do that, but it only does that in a very attenuated way. And therefore, if it can do this in order to effectuate that power, then it pretty much can do anything to effectuate a power. And therefore, it can pretty much do anything. And that's a big problem. So Maryland sues McCulloch. And then what happens? Right, Maryland sues McCulloch because Maryland didn't pass an annihilative tax."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's a big problem. So Maryland sues McCulloch. And then what happens? Right, Maryland sues McCulloch because Maryland didn't pass an annihilative tax. It was a tax of around 2% of the bank notes issued by the National Bank. And Maryland won in the state trial court. And Maryland won in the state Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Right, Maryland sues McCulloch because Maryland didn't pass an annihilative tax. It was a tax of around 2% of the bank notes issued by the National Bank. And Maryland won in the state trial court. And Maryland won in the state Supreme Court. And this was really not a state trial court. Really not a surprise at the time. State courts were, let's just say, solicitous of the views of the state."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Maryland won in the state Supreme Court. And this was really not a state trial court. Really not a surprise at the time. State courts were, let's just say, solicitous of the views of the state. And after the state Supreme Court decided, the case went to the US Supreme Court on appeal. So even though Maryland sues McCulloch, by the time it gets to the Supreme Court, it's called McCulloch against Maryland because McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch, is now the petitioner. He's requesting the US Supreme Court review of the decision of the Maryland High Court."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "State courts were, let's just say, solicitous of the views of the state. And after the state Supreme Court decided, the case went to the US Supreme Court on appeal. So even though Maryland sues McCulloch, by the time it gets to the Supreme Court, it's called McCulloch against Maryland because McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch, is now the petitioner. He's requesting the US Supreme Court review of the decision of the Maryland High Court. And McCulloch is asking the Supreme Court to intervene and, in essence, side with the federal government over the state. Interesting. So what are the constitutional issues at stake once the McCulloch case gets to the Supreme Court?"}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's requesting the US Supreme Court review of the decision of the Maryland High Court. And McCulloch is asking the Supreme Court to intervene and, in essence, side with the federal government over the state. Interesting. So what are the constitutional issues at stake once the McCulloch case gets to the Supreme Court? Well, the Supreme Court, in a very lengthy opinion, has to consider a couple of different matters. First, it has to consider whether the states have the power to tax a federal entity like a bank. And that's where you have the famous statement by John Marshall that says, the power to tax can be the power to destroy."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what are the constitutional issues at stake once the McCulloch case gets to the Supreme Court? Well, the Supreme Court, in a very lengthy opinion, has to consider a couple of different matters. First, it has to consider whether the states have the power to tax a federal entity like a bank. And that's where you have the famous statement by John Marshall that says, the power to tax can be the power to destroy. But he's talking about is the power of states to tax a federal entity like a bank might be the power of states to destroy a federal entity. And he ruled against that claim. And he basically argued that states couldn't have that kind of power."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's where you have the famous statement by John Marshall that says, the power to tax can be the power to destroy. But he's talking about is the power of states to tax a federal entity like a bank might be the power of states to destroy a federal entity. And he ruled against that claim. And he basically argued that states couldn't have that kind of power. And a threshold question before the Supreme Court decides that question of state authority to tax the national government is whether the national bank can exist to begin with. Is there federal power to create a national bank? Part of what Maryland is arguing is that there's no federal power to create the bank."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he basically argued that states couldn't have that kind of power. And a threshold question before the Supreme Court decides that question of state authority to tax the national government is whether the national bank can exist to begin with. Is there federal power to create a national bank? Part of what Maryland is arguing is that there's no federal power to create the bank. And so, in fact, this taxation that it's engaging in is unproblematic. The first question is whether the federal government can create the bank. And if the answer is no, then the case is over."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Part of what Maryland is arguing is that there's no federal power to create the bank. And so, in fact, this taxation that it's engaging in is unproblematic. The first question is whether the federal government can create the bank. And if the answer is no, then the case is over. If the answer is yes, then you get to the second question of whether the states can tax this part of the federal government, the national bank. So at this time, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is John Marshall, very well known as being kind of the Chief Justice that brought the Supreme Court to be a major player in the US governmental system. How did he interpret what was going on?"}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if the answer is no, then the case is over. If the answer is yes, then you get to the second question of whether the states can tax this part of the federal government, the national bank. So at this time, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is John Marshall, very well known as being kind of the Chief Justice that brought the Supreme Court to be a major player in the US governmental system. How did he interpret what was going on? What did he and the other justices decide? He borrowed extensively from Hamilton's arguments. And so Marshall adopted Hamilton's arguments in defense of the constitutionality of the bank that Hamilton originally articulated back in 1790, 1791."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How did he interpret what was going on? What did he and the other justices decide? He borrowed extensively from Hamilton's arguments. And so Marshall adopted Hamilton's arguments in defense of the constitutionality of the bank that Hamilton originally articulated back in 1790, 1791. And so the court held an opinion by the great Chief Justice, first that Congress does possess the authority to create the bank, and secondly, that states have no authority to tax the bank. And that is what Marshall concluded was within Congress's power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact. And in fact, when it got to the court in McCulloch versus Maryland, it was the state of Maryland who basically adopted the Jeffersonian approach and said that a measure must be, in its words, indispensably requisite, or what you might call absolutely necessary, in order for it to be constitutional."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so Marshall adopted Hamilton's arguments in defense of the constitutionality of the bank that Hamilton originally articulated back in 1790, 1791. And so the court held an opinion by the great Chief Justice, first that Congress does possess the authority to create the bank, and secondly, that states have no authority to tax the bank. And that is what Marshall concluded was within Congress's power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact. And in fact, when it got to the court in McCulloch versus Maryland, it was the state of Maryland who basically adopted the Jeffersonian approach and said that a measure must be, in its words, indispensably requisite, or what you might call absolutely necessary, in order for it to be constitutional. And whereas the defenders of the bank bill said that it could be a lot less than that. So I think that there's basically three positions that you can have. It has to be indispensably requisite or logically necessary."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And in fact, when it got to the court in McCulloch versus Maryland, it was the state of Maryland who basically adopted the Jeffersonian approach and said that a measure must be, in its words, indispensably requisite, or what you might call absolutely necessary, in order for it to be constitutional. And whereas the defenders of the bank bill said that it could be a lot less than that. So I think that there's basically three positions that you can have. It has to be indispensably requisite or logically necessary. That's the Jefferson and Maryland view. It could be merely a matter of convenience or expediency, meaning basically Congress can do whatever it wants. That's the liberal view that's sometimes attributed to John Marshall in McCulloch versus Maryland, but he denied it."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It has to be indispensably requisite or logically necessary. That's the Jefferson and Maryland view. It could be merely a matter of convenience or expediency, meaning basically Congress can do whatever it wants. That's the liberal view that's sometimes attributed to John Marshall in McCulloch versus Maryland, but he denied it. And there's the in-between position that I think both Madison and Hamilton were favoring. And that is the requirement of some degree of means and fit, so that a measure really is aimed at a particular end, and it's not really trying to accomplish something that Congress isn't given the power over. What I think is less well known about this case is that this part of the case was over and the court had already decided that this federal power to create the bank before it even got to the necessary and proper clause."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's the liberal view that's sometimes attributed to John Marshall in McCulloch versus Maryland, but he denied it. And there's the in-between position that I think both Madison and Hamilton were favoring. And that is the requirement of some degree of means and fit, so that a measure really is aimed at a particular end, and it's not really trying to accomplish something that Congress isn't given the power over. What I think is less well known about this case is that this part of the case was over and the court had already decided that this federal power to create the bank before it even got to the necessary and proper clause. This case is a great example of what's called structural constitutional interpretation. Hamilton articulated two structural principles. First, that the federal government is supreme within its sphere of action."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What I think is less well known about this case is that this part of the case was over and the court had already decided that this federal power to create the bank before it even got to the necessary and proper clause. This case is a great example of what's called structural constitutional interpretation. Hamilton articulated two structural principles. First, that the federal government is supreme within its sphere of action. And second, if some kind of end is within federal power, is listed in the Constitution, then any convenient or useful means to accomplishing that end is also within the scope. And so Marshall decides that drawing inferences from his understanding of the theory and structure of government created by the Constitution. And only after he does that, does he then turn to the necessary and proper clause to confirm what he has already deduced through what he calls general reasoning."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "First, that the federal government is supreme within its sphere of action. And second, if some kind of end is within federal power, is listed in the Constitution, then any convenient or useful means to accomplishing that end is also within the scope. And so Marshall decides that drawing inferences from his understanding of the theory and structure of government created by the Constitution. And only after he does that, does he then turn to the necessary and proper clause to confirm what he has already deduced through what he calls general reasoning. So McCullough versus Maryland is frequently paired with Marbury versus Madison as being two cases that really decide the extent of federal power in this early era. Do you think these two cases are related? What do they tell us about the ideas at this time period about federal power?"}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And only after he does that, does he then turn to the necessary and proper clause to confirm what he has already deduced through what he calls general reasoning. So McCullough versus Maryland is frequently paired with Marbury versus Madison as being two cases that really decide the extent of federal power in this early era. Do you think these two cases are related? What do they tell us about the ideas at this time period about federal power? Well, they're very important. I don't think they are quite as extreme as they've come to be read after the New Deal. When the New Deal court and advocates, the progressive advocates for a New Deal were going back into the past and seeking justifications for what they wanted to do, they read McCullough versus Maryland very broadly."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What do they tell us about the ideas at this time period about federal power? Well, they're very important. I don't think they are quite as extreme as they've come to be read after the New Deal. When the New Deal court and advocates, the progressive advocates for a New Deal were going back into the past and seeking justifications for what they wanted to do, they read McCullough versus Maryland very broadly. They also read Marbury versus Madison. Actually, they read Marbury versus Madison in some respects very narrowly because they didn't want courts invalidating their New Deal legislations. Marbury versus Madison was not a huge deal at the time it was decided."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When the New Deal court and advocates, the progressive advocates for a New Deal were going back into the past and seeking justifications for what they wanted to do, they read McCullough versus Maryland very broadly. They also read Marbury versus Madison. Actually, they read Marbury versus Madison in some respects very narrowly because they didn't want courts invalidating their New Deal legislations. Marbury versus Madison was not a huge deal at the time it was decided. The idea that judges had a duty to follow the higher law when it was in conflict with the mere statute was widely accepted at the time of the founding. And so Marbury was not announcing a new policy. McCullough versus Maryland, on the other hand, was extremely controversial when it was decided."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Marbury versus Madison was not a huge deal at the time it was decided. The idea that judges had a duty to follow the higher law when it was in conflict with the mere statute was widely accepted at the time of the founding. And so Marbury was not announcing a new policy. McCullough versus Maryland, on the other hand, was extremely controversial when it was decided. And in fact, quite oddly, James Madison, who had signed the bill authorizing the second bank into law, greatly strenuously objected to John Marshall's opinion in McCullough versus Maryland upholding the bill that Madison had signed into law. So Madison still maintained that Marshall had a latitudinarian or an overly broad interpretation of federal power, even in upholding the bill that Madison by this time had come to believe was constitutional. So what ultimately happened with the Bank of the United States?"}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "McCullough versus Maryland, on the other hand, was extremely controversial when it was decided. And in fact, quite oddly, James Madison, who had signed the bill authorizing the second bank into law, greatly strenuously objected to John Marshall's opinion in McCullough versus Maryland upholding the bill that Madison had signed into law. So Madison still maintained that Marshall had a latitudinarian or an overly broad interpretation of federal power, even in upholding the bill that Madison by this time had come to believe was constitutional. So what ultimately happened with the Bank of the United States? What ultimately happened is both the first bank, the bill creating the first bank and the second bank had what's called a sunset provision, which means after a certain amount of time, and it was 20 years, it expires. And so to reauthorize it, it puts the burden of inertia on those who want the thing to continue. And so Congress had to pass another bill reauthorizing the bank, and President Andrew Jackson opposed reauthorization."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what ultimately happened with the Bank of the United States? What ultimately happened is both the first bank, the bill creating the first bank and the second bank had what's called a sunset provision, which means after a certain amount of time, and it was 20 years, it expires. And so to reauthorize it, it puts the burden of inertia on those who want the thing to continue. And so Congress had to pass another bill reauthorizing the bank, and President Andrew Jackson opposed reauthorization. President Andrew Jackson vetoed the reauthorization of the bank, and it was very interesting because he vetoed it on constitutional grounds. He said it was unconstitutional. And yet, what happened to McCullough versus Maryland?"}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so Congress had to pass another bill reauthorizing the bank, and President Andrew Jackson opposed reauthorization. President Andrew Jackson vetoed the reauthorization of the bank, and it was very interesting because he vetoed it on constitutional grounds. He said it was unconstitutional. And yet, what happened to McCullough versus Maryland? If McCullough versus Maryland said the bank was constitutional, how could President Jackson say that it was unconstitutional? Well, it was interesting because what McCullough said was that the bank was constitutional as an exercise of Congress's power to make laws that are necessary and proper that Congress believed was necessary and proper, and because Congress believed it was necessary, and because the measure was plainly adapted to a legitimate end in the Constitution, then it was constitutional. What Jackson said was, hey, look, the court said that it's up to Congress to decide whether something is necessary and therefore constitutional, and I as president exercise a veto power as part of the legislative process, therefore it is up to me to decide whether the measure is necessary and therefore is constitutional."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And yet, what happened to McCullough versus Maryland? If McCullough versus Maryland said the bank was constitutional, how could President Jackson say that it was unconstitutional? Well, it was interesting because what McCullough said was that the bank was constitutional as an exercise of Congress's power to make laws that are necessary and proper that Congress believed was necessary and proper, and because Congress believed it was necessary, and because the measure was plainly adapted to a legitimate end in the Constitution, then it was constitutional. What Jackson said was, hey, look, the court said that it's up to Congress to decide whether something is necessary and therefore constitutional, and I as president exercise a veto power as part of the legislative process, therefore it is up to me to decide whether the measure is necessary and therefore is constitutional. So I as president have decided that a bank is not necessary, and therefore, because the bank is not necessary, it is unconstitutional, and McCullough versus Maryland allows me, as a participant in the legislative process, to make that call. Congress did not override Jackson's veto, and the bank expired and the story ended in 1836, and I think this speaks to one of many morals of the story of the Bank of the United States. The Supreme Court doesn't have the last word on constitutional questions when it upholds exercises of federal power."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What Jackson said was, hey, look, the court said that it's up to Congress to decide whether something is necessary and therefore constitutional, and I as president exercise a veto power as part of the legislative process, therefore it is up to me to decide whether the measure is necessary and therefore is constitutional. So I as president have decided that a bank is not necessary, and therefore, because the bank is not necessary, it is unconstitutional, and McCullough versus Maryland allows me, as a participant in the legislative process, to make that call. Congress did not override Jackson's veto, and the bank expired and the story ended in 1836, and I think this speaks to one of many morals of the story of the Bank of the United States. The Supreme Court doesn't have the last word on constitutional questions when it upholds exercises of federal power. It's then left to the political process to decide whether or not it wants to continue whatever controversial action or legislation was at issue. So is there any aspect of McCullough versus Maryland that still affects us today? One reading of McCullough is that it gives Congress a broad, a power so broad that it allows Congress to exercise any power that it deems convenient to the exercise of one of its enumerated powers."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Supreme Court doesn't have the last word on constitutional questions when it upholds exercises of federal power. It's then left to the political process to decide whether or not it wants to continue whatever controversial action or legislation was at issue. So is there any aspect of McCullough versus Maryland that still affects us today? One reading of McCullough is that it gives Congress a broad, a power so broad that it allows Congress to exercise any power that it deems convenient to the exercise of one of its enumerated powers. That is how McCullough has come to be interpreted. I think that is an over-reading of McCullough, and it also overlooks one of the key passages of McCullough versus Maryland that nowadays is given no legal effect by the Supreme Court. This is what John Marshall said."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One reading of McCullough is that it gives Congress a broad, a power so broad that it allows Congress to exercise any power that it deems convenient to the exercise of one of its enumerated powers. That is how McCullough has come to be interpreted. I think that is an over-reading of McCullough, and it also overlooks one of the key passages of McCullough versus Maryland that nowadays is given no legal effect by the Supreme Court. This is what John Marshall said. Should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal should a case requiring such a decision come before it to say that such an act was not the law of the land. So what Marshall is saying there is that just because Congress says a law is necessary to one of its enumerated powers doesn't make it so, and if there is a lack of fit between means and ends suggesting that in fact Congress is trying to pursue one of the powers that was not given to it under the Constitution, it really would be the painful duty of the tribunal to say it was not the law of the land, and that connects this case back up with Marbury versus Madison in which it is the painful duty of the Supreme Court to say that a statute is not the law of the land if it's unconstitutional. That aspect of McCulloch versus Maryland is no longer followed in part because during the New Deal the Supreme Court said that it would not inquire into the motives of Congress in enacting laws, and in fact what McCulloch is saying here is to inquire into the motives."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is what John Marshall said. Should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal should a case requiring such a decision come before it to say that such an act was not the law of the land. So what Marshall is saying there is that just because Congress says a law is necessary to one of its enumerated powers doesn't make it so, and if there is a lack of fit between means and ends suggesting that in fact Congress is trying to pursue one of the powers that was not given to it under the Constitution, it really would be the painful duty of the tribunal to say it was not the law of the land, and that connects this case back up with Marbury versus Madison in which it is the painful duty of the Supreme Court to say that a statute is not the law of the land if it's unconstitutional. That aspect of McCulloch versus Maryland is no longer followed in part because during the New Deal the Supreme Court said that it would not inquire into the motives of Congress in enacting laws, and in fact what McCulloch is saying here is to inquire into the motives. It's to say, hey look, it's really, it purports to be doing one thing, but it's really doing something else, and that is pretextual. There has been irreconcilable disagreement on basic constitutional questions from the very beginning of the Constitution. Madison and Hamilton who come together and write the Federalist Papers, they disagree about this fundamental question of strict versus loose construction of Congress's enumerated powers."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That aspect of McCulloch versus Maryland is no longer followed in part because during the New Deal the Supreme Court said that it would not inquire into the motives of Congress in enacting laws, and in fact what McCulloch is saying here is to inquire into the motives. It's to say, hey look, it's really, it purports to be doing one thing, but it's really doing something else, and that is pretextual. There has been irreconcilable disagreement on basic constitutional questions from the very beginning of the Constitution. Madison and Hamilton who come together and write the Federalist Papers, they disagree about this fundamental question of strict versus loose construction of Congress's enumerated powers. They also disagree about Congress's spending powers. They disagree about inherent executive power. So sometimes originalist constitutional arguments presuppose a greater degree of consensus about what the Constitution means at the start of the country that I don't see when I study the history."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Madison and Hamilton who come together and write the Federalist Papers, they disagree about this fundamental question of strict versus loose construction of Congress's enumerated powers. They also disagree about Congress's spending powers. They disagree about inherent executive power. So sometimes originalist constitutional arguments presuppose a greater degree of consensus about what the Constitution means at the start of the country that I don't see when I study the history. We have always disagreed. We've always managed to find some kind of community in disagreement. It's the conflicts and disagreements that have binded us together as much if not more than the agreements we've had about what the Constitution means."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So sometimes originalist constitutional arguments presuppose a greater degree of consensus about what the Constitution means at the start of the country that I don't see when I study the history. We have always disagreed. We've always managed to find some kind of community in disagreement. It's the conflicts and disagreements that have binded us together as much if not more than the agreements we've had about what the Constitution means. So we've learned that McCulloch versus Maryland was about far more than just a tax on a bank. It bolstered the power of the federal government by broadly defining the necessary and proper clause and by confirming that federal law is supreme to state law. To learn more about McCulloch versus Maryland, visit the National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution and Khan Academy's resources on US government and politics."}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The extent of and limits on rights can be very complex. That's why we have constitutional lawyers and Supreme Court cases to decide whether the government protects or prohibits certain activities. But we can make some generalizations about categories of rights in the American political system. In this and the videos that follow, we're going to distinguish between three different types of rights. Personal rights, political rights, and economic rights. So let's dive into personal rights. This is a really big umbrella that includes individuals' right to decide the best course of action for themselves."}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In this and the videos that follow, we're going to distinguish between three different types of rights. Personal rights, political rights, and economic rights. So let's dive into personal rights. This is a really big umbrella that includes individuals' right to decide the best course of action for themselves. Personal rights define the ways that you should be free from government interference in your private life, your home, your mind, and your body. You'll recognize some of them from the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and religion, and the Fourth Amendment, which protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. So what are some of these rights?"}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is a really big umbrella that includes individuals' right to decide the best course of action for themselves. Personal rights define the ways that you should be free from government interference in your private life, your home, your mind, and your body. You'll recognize some of them from the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and religion, and the Fourth Amendment, which protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. So what are some of these rights? I've tried to put them into a spectrum from freedom of body to freedom of mind and heart. Although you'll see that there are lots of places where freedom of body and freedom of mind overlap. First, there's freedom of movement."}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what are some of these rights? I've tried to put them into a spectrum from freedom of body to freedom of mind and heart. Although you'll see that there are lots of places where freedom of body and freedom of mind overlap. First, there's freedom of movement. This means that you can move to a different state or even move to a different country if you want to. The U.S. government won't force you to stay put. There's the freedom of association, that is, to hang out with anyone you want to."}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "First, there's freedom of movement. This means that you can move to a different state or even move to a different country if you want to. The U.S. government won't force you to stay put. There's the freedom of association, that is, to hang out with anyone you want to. There's the freedom to refuse medical care, to be able to control your own body. The government can't force you to undergo a medical procedure. Likewise, there's the freedom to have children, as many or as few as you want."}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's the freedom of association, that is, to hang out with anyone you want to. There's the freedom to refuse medical care, to be able to control your own body. The government can't force you to undergo a medical procedure. Likewise, there's the freedom to have children, as many or as few as you want. There's also the freedom from government intrusion into your private domain, also known as the right to privacy. It means that the government can't come into your home without a warrant or otherwise interfere in your private life behind closed doors. There's the freedom of expression, the ability of an individual or group to express their beliefs, thoughts, ideas, and emotions."}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Likewise, there's the freedom to have children, as many or as few as you want. There's also the freedom from government intrusion into your private domain, also known as the right to privacy. It means that the government can't come into your home without a warrant or otherwise interfere in your private life behind closed doors. There's the freedom of expression, the ability of an individual or group to express their beliefs, thoughts, ideas, and emotions. There's the freedom to access education. So people who are school age have the right to receive a public education no matter who they are or whether they have learning differences. There's the freedom to marry whomever you choose."}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's the freedom of expression, the ability of an individual or group to express their beliefs, thoughts, ideas, and emotions. There's the freedom to access education. So people who are school age have the right to receive a public education no matter who they are or whether they have learning differences. There's the freedom to marry whomever you choose. And lastly, there's freedom of religion and conscience. This is your personal right to think and believe whatever you want. The United States doesn't have an established church, meaning one that the government supports financially or that citizens are obligated to attend."}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's the freedom to marry whomever you choose. And lastly, there's freedom of religion and conscience. This is your personal right to think and believe whatever you want. The United States doesn't have an established church, meaning one that the government supports financially or that citizens are obligated to attend. Some of these freedoms might seem like no-brainers, but people who live in authoritarian societies don't necessarily enjoy these same rights. If you've ever read George Orwell's novel 1984, it's a good example of what society might look like without these rights. In it, the government spies on everyone in their homes and prevents anyone from speaking out against the ruling party."}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The United States doesn't have an established church, meaning one that the government supports financially or that citizens are obligated to attend. Some of these freedoms might seem like no-brainers, but people who live in authoritarian societies don't necessarily enjoy these same rights. If you've ever read George Orwell's novel 1984, it's a good example of what society might look like without these rights. In it, the government spies on everyone in their homes and prevents anyone from speaking out against the ruling party. But it's also important to recognize that these rights aren't absolute. Many of them have limits, and what those limits should be sparks a lot of public debate. For example, when we talk about the right to refuse medical care, we might think about vaccines."}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In it, the government spies on everyone in their homes and prevents anyone from speaking out against the ruling party. But it's also important to recognize that these rights aren't absolute. Many of them have limits, and what those limits should be sparks a lot of public debate. For example, when we talk about the right to refuse medical care, we might think about vaccines. Should people be required to get vaccines if not doing so poses a risk to the health of others? What about freedom of expression? Should people be able to say whatever they want, or should the government impose limits on hate speech?"}, {"video_title": "Personal rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "For example, when we talk about the right to refuse medical care, we might think about vaccines. Should people be required to get vaccines if not doing so poses a risk to the health of others? What about freedom of expression? Should people be able to say whatever they want, or should the government impose limits on hate speech? The personal rights of one person will frequently overlap with or even contradict the personal rights of someone else. So that's it for this brief overview of personal rights. In the next video, we'll discuss the political rights of citizens."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This, along with the Tenth Amendment, doesn't protect a specific right, like freedom of religion or due process under the law, but rather advances an interpretation of the scope of the Constitution and of government power. To learn more about the Ninth Amendment, I talked with two experts. Kurt Lasch is the E. Claiborne Robbins Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Richmond School of Law. Jeffrey Rosen is the President and CEO of the National Constitution Center. He's written extensively on the history of the Supreme Court. Professor Lasch, can you tell us a little bit more about this amendment? Why did the framers include this amendment in the first place?"}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Jeffrey Rosen is the President and CEO of the National Constitution Center. He's written extensively on the history of the Supreme Court. Professor Lasch, can you tell us a little bit more about this amendment? Why did the framers include this amendment in the first place? The Ninth Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was added at the insistence of the states. Although the advocates of the proposed Constitution had claimed that the national government would have only limited enumerated power, the state ratifying conventions wanted that promise put in writing. Originally, the Constitution didn't contain a Bill of Rights because James Madison said, a Bill of Rights would be unnecessary or dangerous."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why did the framers include this amendment in the first place? The Ninth Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was added at the insistence of the states. Although the advocates of the proposed Constitution had claimed that the national government would have only limited enumerated power, the state ratifying conventions wanted that promise put in writing. Originally, the Constitution didn't contain a Bill of Rights because James Madison said, a Bill of Rights would be unnecessary or dangerous. Unnecessary because the Constitution itself was a Bill of Rights. It only granted Congress limited powers, and therefore Congress had no power to infringe free speech, for example, or religious liberty, and therefore wouldn't be able to do so. And dangerous, Madison said, because if you had a Bill of Rights, people might wrongly assume that if a right wasn't written down, it wasn't protected."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Originally, the Constitution didn't contain a Bill of Rights because James Madison said, a Bill of Rights would be unnecessary or dangerous. Unnecessary because the Constitution itself was a Bill of Rights. It only granted Congress limited powers, and therefore Congress had no power to infringe free speech, for example, or religious liberty, and therefore wouldn't be able to do so. And dangerous, Madison said, because if you had a Bill of Rights, people might wrongly assume that if a right wasn't written down, it wasn't protected. But in response to objections by anti-federalists, that is those opposed to the ratification of the Constitution, led by George Mason of Virginia, as well as Edmund Randolph of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, so those three guys said, hey, unless we include a Bill of Rights for greater security and safety, then we don't think the Constitution should be ratified. And in response to their objections and those in ratifying conventions, many of which demanded a Bill of Rights, Madison changed his mind, and he included a Bill of Rights, which he cut and pasted from revolutionary era state constitutions, and viewers and listeners can check those out at the Interactive Constitution. But then that raised an interpretive problem."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And dangerous, Madison said, because if you had a Bill of Rights, people might wrongly assume that if a right wasn't written down, it wasn't protected. But in response to objections by anti-federalists, that is those opposed to the ratification of the Constitution, led by George Mason of Virginia, as well as Edmund Randolph of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, so those three guys said, hey, unless we include a Bill of Rights for greater security and safety, then we don't think the Constitution should be ratified. And in response to their objections and those in ratifying conventions, many of which demanded a Bill of Rights, Madison changed his mind, and he included a Bill of Rights, which he cut and pasted from revolutionary era state constitutions, and viewers and listeners can check those out at the Interactive Constitution. But then that raised an interpretive problem. Madison and others were worried if you just had a limited list of rights, 10 amendments in particular protecting particular rights, people might assume that if a right wasn't written down, then it wasn't protected. And the framers didn't want you to reach that conclusion because they believe that our rights come from God or nature and not from government. Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, said we're all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But then that raised an interpretive problem. Madison and others were worried if you just had a limited list of rights, 10 amendments in particular protecting particular rights, people might assume that if a right wasn't written down, then it wasn't protected. And the framers didn't want you to reach that conclusion because they believe that our rights come from God or nature and not from government. Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, said we're all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. And when you look at these amendments, our first 10 amendments, you'll notice that some address specific issues like speech and the right to bear arms. The last two amendments on that list, however, address broader issues of constitutional interpretation. These are rules of construction."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, said we're all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. And when you look at these amendments, our first 10 amendments, you'll notice that some address specific issues like speech and the right to bear arms. The last two amendments on that list, however, address broader issues of constitutional interpretation. These are rules of construction. The 10th amendment declares that all powers not delegated away remain under the control of the people in the states. The ninth amendment addresses the problem potentially raised by adding this list in a bill of rights. The ninth amendment tells us that just because the constitution lists certain important limitations on federal power, this doesn't mean that the federal government has otherwise unlimited power, or as the ninth amendment puts it, the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage to others retained by the people."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These are rules of construction. The 10th amendment declares that all powers not delegated away remain under the control of the people in the states. The ninth amendment addresses the problem potentially raised by adding this list in a bill of rights. The ninth amendment tells us that just because the constitution lists certain important limitations on federal power, this doesn't mean that the federal government has otherwise unlimited power, or as the ninth amendment puts it, the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage to others retained by the people. And in this way, those two last rules of construction ensure that every subject not placed under the control of the national government would remain under the control of the people in the states and remain there as a matter of right. These amendments protect the people's retained right to local self-government. So I've talked a bit about natural rights because that same notion of the idea that you retain natural rights when you move from the state of nature to the civil society is picked up in the language of the ninth amendment, which says that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The ninth amendment tells us that just because the constitution lists certain important limitations on federal power, this doesn't mean that the federal government has otherwise unlimited power, or as the ninth amendment puts it, the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage to others retained by the people. And in this way, those two last rules of construction ensure that every subject not placed under the control of the national government would remain under the control of the people in the states and remain there as a matter of right. These amendments protect the people's retained right to local self-government. So I've talked a bit about natural rights because that same notion of the idea that you retain natural rights when you move from the state of nature to the civil society is picked up in the language of the ninth amendment, which says that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. So one big theory of the ninth amendment is that it refers to these natural rights that come from God or nature, and that you retain during the transition from the state of nature to civil society. All right, so can you give us a few examples of what those unenumerated rights that people have debated have been? The paradigmatic source for identifying what unenumerated rights are protected is a case called Corfield versus Correal."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So I've talked a bit about natural rights because that same notion of the idea that you retain natural rights when you move from the state of nature to the civil society is picked up in the language of the ninth amendment, which says that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. So one big theory of the ninth amendment is that it refers to these natural rights that come from God or nature, and that you retain during the transition from the state of nature to civil society. All right, so can you give us a few examples of what those unenumerated rights that people have debated have been? The paradigmatic source for identifying what unenumerated rights are protected is a case called Corfield versus Correal. It was decided in the early 19th century, and it was cited repeatedly by the people who wrote the privileges or immunities clause to the 14th amendment to the Constitution. And basically, the privileges or immunities clause says that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, and the question is, what are those privileges or immunities? And in trying to define them, John Bingham, who wrote the 14th amendment and a lot of other people said, well, some of the privileges or immunities include the rights written down in the Bill of Rights, but others are not written down in the Bill of Rights, and you can find them in the Corfield and Correal case."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The paradigmatic source for identifying what unenumerated rights are protected is a case called Corfield versus Correal. It was decided in the early 19th century, and it was cited repeatedly by the people who wrote the privileges or immunities clause to the 14th amendment to the Constitution. And basically, the privileges or immunities clause says that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, and the question is, what are those privileges or immunities? And in trying to define them, John Bingham, who wrote the 14th amendment and a lot of other people said, well, some of the privileges or immunities include the rights written down in the Bill of Rights, but others are not written down in the Bill of Rights, and you can find them in the Corfield and Correal case. They're rights that are fundamental, they're uniform from state to state, and they've been considered basic rights of Americans from the beginning. And some of these rights include the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue and be sued, to have basic economic rights, and also to have the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, which is in the original Constitution, and that's the right to challenge the constitutionality of your conviction. It's in the original Constitution, but not in the Bill of Rights."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And in trying to define them, John Bingham, who wrote the 14th amendment and a lot of other people said, well, some of the privileges or immunities include the rights written down in the Bill of Rights, but others are not written down in the Bill of Rights, and you can find them in the Corfield and Correal case. They're rights that are fundamental, they're uniform from state to state, and they've been considered basic rights of Americans from the beginning. And some of these rights include the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue and be sued, to have basic economic rights, and also to have the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, which is in the original Constitution, and that's the right to challenge the constitutionality of your conviction. It's in the original Constitution, but not in the Bill of Rights. So those are just some examples of the unenumerated economic rights that the framers of the 14th amendment considered to be protected by the 14th amendment and by implication by the 9th amendment too, because they are natural rights, as we heard Roger Sherman say, the basic rights of acquiring and possessing property and obtaining happiness and safety. Those are some of those rights. The 9th amendment raises the difficult issue of how exactly you determine what the rights are that are actually retained by the people, and the text of the 9th amendment itself tells us very little about the specific content of our retained rights."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's in the original Constitution, but not in the Bill of Rights. So those are just some examples of the unenumerated economic rights that the framers of the 14th amendment considered to be protected by the 14th amendment and by implication by the 9th amendment too, because they are natural rights, as we heard Roger Sherman say, the basic rights of acquiring and possessing property and obtaining happiness and safety. Those are some of those rights. The 9th amendment raises the difficult issue of how exactly you determine what the rights are that are actually retained by the people, and the text of the 9th amendment itself tells us very little about the specific content of our retained rights. But in fact, these retained rights are as numerous as the stars in the sky. They include everything from wearing a hat to walking on the sidewalk to purchasing life insurance or determining where you can park your car or what classes should be offered in the local high school. Basically everything that was never meant to be handed to the control of the national government, all of these are rights retained to the control of the people in the several states."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The 9th amendment raises the difficult issue of how exactly you determine what the rights are that are actually retained by the people, and the text of the 9th amendment itself tells us very little about the specific content of our retained rights. But in fact, these retained rights are as numerous as the stars in the sky. They include everything from wearing a hat to walking on the sidewalk to purchasing life insurance or determining where you can park your car or what classes should be offered in the local high school. Basically everything that was never meant to be handed to the control of the national government, all of these are rights retained to the control of the people in the several states. And all of these rights will be protected if you limit the scope of federal power. A limited interpretation of the Commerce Clause, for example, preserves the people's retained right to establish local educational policy and to pass all manner of local civil rights legislation that's not expressly covered by the federal constitution. The greater the limits on federal power, the greater the freedom of local communities."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Basically everything that was never meant to be handed to the control of the national government, all of these are rights retained to the control of the people in the several states. And all of these rights will be protected if you limit the scope of federal power. A limited interpretation of the Commerce Clause, for example, preserves the people's retained right to establish local educational policy and to pass all manner of local civil rights legislation that's not expressly covered by the federal constitution. The greater the limits on federal power, the greater the freedom of local communities. And by making a limited interpretation of federal power a right, this ensures the matter can be litigated in federal court and not just left to political compromise. Over time, courts will produce a body of law that invalidates attempts by the federal government to regulate our lives in forbidden ways, such as not having the power under the Commerce Clause to force us to purchase private health insurance or not having the power to commandeer state officials and force them to enforce federal immigration policy. Does this refer back to some extent to kind of the common law of England and the things that were considered the natural rights of Englishmen?"}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The greater the limits on federal power, the greater the freedom of local communities. And by making a limited interpretation of federal power a right, this ensures the matter can be litigated in federal court and not just left to political compromise. Over time, courts will produce a body of law that invalidates attempts by the federal government to regulate our lives in forbidden ways, such as not having the power under the Commerce Clause to force us to purchase private health insurance or not having the power to commandeer state officials and force them to enforce federal immigration policy. Does this refer back to some extent to kind of the common law of England and the things that were considered the natural rights of Englishmen? Yes, it does. Although we should distinguish, if we're gonna be precise, which we should, not all of the common law rights of Englishmen were natural rights. The common law rights basically are rights that were traditionally protected by English law."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Does this refer back to some extent to kind of the common law of England and the things that were considered the natural rights of Englishmen? Yes, it does. Although we should distinguish, if we're gonna be precise, which we should, not all of the common law rights of Englishmen were natural rights. The common law rights basically are rights that were traditionally protected by English law. They're rights that had been recognized by English judges over centuries. Natural rights come from God or nature, not from government. And there's overlap between those groups, but there might've been some common law rights of English people that were recognized by tradition, like the right to jury trial, for example, that's not a natural right because there are no juries in the state of nature."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The common law rights basically are rights that were traditionally protected by English law. They're rights that had been recognized by English judges over centuries. Natural rights come from God or nature, not from government. And there's overlap between those groups, but there might've been some common law rights of English people that were recognized by tradition, like the right to jury trial, for example, that's not a natural right because there are no juries in the state of nature. They're just people who are, you know, imagining forming governments. So it makes it a little tricky, but it's actually not that analytically tricky. And it's so interesting that over and over again, the framework said, you know, this is just, everyone knows what these natural rights are."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there's overlap between those groups, but there might've been some common law rights of English people that were recognized by tradition, like the right to jury trial, for example, that's not a natural right because there are no juries in the state of nature. They're just people who are, you know, imagining forming governments. So it makes it a little tricky, but it's actually not that analytically tricky. And it's so interesting that over and over again, the framework said, you know, this is just, everyone knows what these natural rights are. They're the ones that are recognized in Corfield and Coriell. They might, and then other enumerated rights might include the common law rights of Englishmen, but it was a pretty short list. And the best way to just figure out which rights were natural, go to the interactive constitution, click down and look at those, look at the Virginia Declaration of Rights."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's so interesting that over and over again, the framework said, you know, this is just, everyone knows what these natural rights are. They're the ones that are recognized in Corfield and Coriell. They might, and then other enumerated rights might include the common law rights of Englishmen, but it was a pretty short list. And the best way to just figure out which rights were natural, go to the interactive constitution, click down and look at those, look at the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Look at the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, the New Hampshire Constitution, which has this beautiful preamble about what a natural right is. And you'll just see that all of these state constitutions are recognizing the same natural rights over and over again. So has the Supreme Court ever decided a case based on the Ninth Amendment?"}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the best way to just figure out which rights were natural, go to the interactive constitution, click down and look at those, look at the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Look at the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, the New Hampshire Constitution, which has this beautiful preamble about what a natural right is. And you'll just see that all of these state constitutions are recognizing the same natural rights over and over again. So has the Supreme Court ever decided a case based on the Ninth Amendment? The first judicial opinion was actually written by Justice Joseph Story, one of the most famous justices in American history. In his opinion in Houston against Moore, decided in 1820, Story explained that the spirit and letter of the Ninth Amendment called for the limited interpreting of the scope of federal power in order to avoid interfering with state laws regarding the local militia. In fact, it wasn't until the 20th century that you find scholars and justices trying to invert the Ninth Amendment in a manner that allowed or even required federal interference with local policies."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So has the Supreme Court ever decided a case based on the Ninth Amendment? The first judicial opinion was actually written by Justice Joseph Story, one of the most famous justices in American history. In his opinion in Houston against Moore, decided in 1820, Story explained that the spirit and letter of the Ninth Amendment called for the limited interpreting of the scope of federal power in order to avoid interfering with state laws regarding the local militia. In fact, it wasn't until the 20th century that you find scholars and justices trying to invert the Ninth Amendment in a manner that allowed or even required federal interference with local policies. In Griswold against Connecticut, for example, Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that the Ninth Amendment supported the court's invalidation of state contraception laws. Douglas says in this case that the constitution and the particular rights in the Bill of Rights include certain penumbras formed by emanations from the particular guarantees that may create broader unenumerated rights, and privacy was one of them. Douglas says privacy is protected in different ways in different parts of the Bill of Rights."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, it wasn't until the 20th century that you find scholars and justices trying to invert the Ninth Amendment in a manner that allowed or even required federal interference with local policies. In Griswold against Connecticut, for example, Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that the Ninth Amendment supported the court's invalidation of state contraception laws. Douglas says in this case that the constitution and the particular rights in the Bill of Rights include certain penumbras formed by emanations from the particular guarantees that may create broader unenumerated rights, and privacy was one of them. Douglas says privacy is protected in different ways in different parts of the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment protects our right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Third Amendment protects the right not to have soldiers courted in the home. The First Amendment protects a right of freedom of association, and from these particular expressions of privacy, Douglas extracted or inferred a broader and more sweeping right of privacy which could be extended to cover a married couple's right to use contraception."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Douglas says privacy is protected in different ways in different parts of the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment protects our right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Third Amendment protects the right not to have soldiers courted in the home. The First Amendment protects a right of freedom of association, and from these particular expressions of privacy, Douglas extracted or inferred a broader and more sweeping right of privacy which could be extended to cover a married couple's right to use contraception. When the Bill of Rights was ratified in the late 18th century, it only applied to the federal government. It was not until after the Civil War in the late 1860s, early 1870s, that the 14th Amendment applied some of the protections of the Bill of Rights to state governments. So how does the 14th Amendment impact our understanding of the Ninth Amendment?"}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The First Amendment protects a right of freedom of association, and from these particular expressions of privacy, Douglas extracted or inferred a broader and more sweeping right of privacy which could be extended to cover a married couple's right to use contraception. When the Bill of Rights was ratified in the late 18th century, it only applied to the federal government. It was not until after the Civil War in the late 1860s, early 1870s, that the 14th Amendment applied some of the protections of the Bill of Rights to state governments. So how does the 14th Amendment impact our understanding of the Ninth Amendment? Most constitutional historians believe that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was originally understood as applying the first eight amendments against the states. But what of the Ninth Amendment? Is it possible that the Privileges or Immunities Clause turns the Ninth Amendment from a provision protecting local government to one that interferes with local government?"}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So how does the 14th Amendment impact our understanding of the Ninth Amendment? Most constitutional historians believe that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was originally understood as applying the first eight amendments against the states. But what of the Ninth Amendment? Is it possible that the Privileges or Immunities Clause turns the Ninth Amendment from a provision protecting local government to one that interferes with local government? Many libertarian scholars believe so. A close look at the historical record, however, shows that this is not likely. To begin with, John Bingham, the man who framed the Privileges or Immunities Clause, publicly declared to the House of Representatives that the Privileges or Immunities Clause made the first eight amendments enforceable against the states."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Is it possible that the Privileges or Immunities Clause turns the Ninth Amendment from a provision protecting local government to one that interferes with local government? Many libertarian scholars believe so. A close look at the historical record, however, shows that this is not likely. To begin with, John Bingham, the man who framed the Privileges or Immunities Clause, publicly declared to the House of Representatives that the Privileges or Immunities Clause made the first eight amendments enforceable against the states. He said nothing about either the Ninth or Tenth Amendments. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the man who introduced the proposed 14th Amendment to his colleagues, Jacob Howard, also said that the Privileges or Immunities Clause would apply the first eight amendments against the states, and he too said nothing about the Ninth or Tenth Amendments. And finally, the public that debated and ratified the 14th Amendment remained broadly committed to the Federalist principle of dividing power between the state and local governments."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To begin with, John Bingham, the man who framed the Privileges or Immunities Clause, publicly declared to the House of Representatives that the Privileges or Immunities Clause made the first eight amendments enforceable against the states. He said nothing about either the Ninth or Tenth Amendments. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the man who introduced the proposed 14th Amendment to his colleagues, Jacob Howard, also said that the Privileges or Immunities Clause would apply the first eight amendments against the states, and he too said nothing about the Ninth or Tenth Amendments. And finally, the public that debated and ratified the 14th Amendment remained broadly committed to the Federalist principle of dividing power between the state and local governments. It had been the slave-holding rebel states that had violated this principle by demanding that slavery be enforced throughout the nation, regardless of local freedom laws. If we look at the period in which they adopted the 14th Amendment, it appears that that amendment did in fact apply the textual rights of the first eight amendments against the states, but it left everything else to local control, subject only to the requirements of due process and equal protection. Well, the Ninth Amendment, at the very least, is a question of interpretation."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And finally, the public that debated and ratified the 14th Amendment remained broadly committed to the Federalist principle of dividing power between the state and local governments. It had been the slave-holding rebel states that had violated this principle by demanding that slavery be enforced throughout the nation, regardless of local freedom laws. If we look at the period in which they adopted the 14th Amendment, it appears that that amendment did in fact apply the textual rights of the first eight amendments against the states, but it left everything else to local control, subject only to the requirements of due process and equal protection. Well, the Ninth Amendment, at the very least, is a question of interpretation. It says, don't assume that if a right isn't written down, it's not protected. So when Robert Bork, the late Robert Bork, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, but didn't get through, said that the Ninth Amendment should be treated as an inkblot because we can't know what rights are actually protected by the Ninth Amendment, it should be ignored, that can't be right. That's the one thing that Madison said, don't do, don't assume that if the right isn't written down, it's not protected."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the Ninth Amendment, at the very least, is a question of interpretation. It says, don't assume that if a right isn't written down, it's not protected. So when Robert Bork, the late Robert Bork, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, but didn't get through, said that the Ninth Amendment should be treated as an inkblot because we can't know what rights are actually protected by the Ninth Amendment, it should be ignored, that can't be right. That's the one thing that Madison said, don't do, don't assume that if the right isn't written down, it's not protected. But saying that that matter of construction is important and that there are certain rights not enumerated in the Constitution that are protected doesn't tell us which rights are protected. And that's where all of the action and all of the drama and all of the excitement and constitutional interpretation in the 20th and 21st century has come from. How do we identify the rights that are not written down or not enumerated, but are protected?"}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's the one thing that Madison said, don't do, don't assume that if the right isn't written down, it's not protected. But saying that that matter of construction is important and that there are certain rights not enumerated in the Constitution that are protected doesn't tell us which rights are protected. And that's where all of the action and all of the drama and all of the excitement and constitutional interpretation in the 20th and 21st century has come from. How do we identify the rights that are not written down or not enumerated, but are protected? And there's a whole lot to say about that. And in fact, that's why we teach constitutional law is to study the methodologies of interpretation that lead people to different conclusions about which unenumerated rights are protected. So we've learned that the Ninth Amendment served as an assurance that the Bill of Rights was not an exhaustive list of the rights retained by the people or the states."}, {"video_title": "The Ninth Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How do we identify the rights that are not written down or not enumerated, but are protected? And there's a whole lot to say about that. And in fact, that's why we teach constitutional law is to study the methodologies of interpretation that lead people to different conclusions about which unenumerated rights are protected. So we've learned that the Ninth Amendment served as an assurance that the Bill of Rights was not an exhaustive list of the rights retained by the people or the states. But how can you protect unenumerated rights, which by their very definition aren't named in the Constitution? Kurt Lash sees the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment as a restriction on federal power. Jeff Rosen reminds us that although it's difficult to tell which rights the framers intended to protect with the Ninth Amendment, it's likely that those rights included the same natural, unalienable rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Hi, this is Kim from Khan Academy. Today I'm learning about the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from imposing excessive fines and bail or inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on individuals accused or convicted of a crime. But what counts as excessive or cruel and unusual? To learn more, I sought out the help of two experts on the Eighth Amendment. John Stineford is the Assistant Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the University of Florida Law School. John Bessler is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore Law School. So, Professor Bessler, why were the framers so keen to include the Eighth Amendment?"}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more, I sought out the help of two experts on the Eighth Amendment. John Stineford is the Assistant Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the University of Florida Law School. John Bessler is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore Law School. So, Professor Bessler, why were the framers so keen to include the Eighth Amendment? Why did they want to protect these rights in particular? Well, these rights were actually enshrined in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. And so when the Americans got into dispute with Great Britain, they decided they wanted to have the same rights that Englishmen had."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So, Professor Bessler, why were the framers so keen to include the Eighth Amendment? Why did they want to protect these rights in particular? Well, these rights were actually enshrined in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. And so when the Americans got into dispute with Great Britain, they decided they wanted to have the same rights that Englishmen had. And so it was not too surprising that when George Mason actually wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, that he looked to English law to see what rights the English had because he wanted exactly the same rights. And so this 16 words in the Eighth Amendment have been subject to a lot of controversy over the years. But I think one of the reasons that the founders wanted this was that, like the English who had had problems with the monarch imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, inflicting cruel and unusual punishments, the founders also knew that was a risk, that there was abuse from the government in the United States."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so when the Americans got into dispute with Great Britain, they decided they wanted to have the same rights that Englishmen had. And so it was not too surprising that when George Mason actually wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, that he looked to English law to see what rights the English had because he wanted exactly the same rights. And so this 16 words in the Eighth Amendment have been subject to a lot of controversy over the years. But I think one of the reasons that the founders wanted this was that, like the English who had had problems with the monarch imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, inflicting cruel and unusual punishments, the founders also knew that was a risk, that there was abuse from the government in the United States. And so they also wanted those rights because originally in the Constitution, these rights were not protected against. And the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, which ensured that there would be protections against these cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail and excessive fines. If you look at the Eighth Amendment, there's three clauses, right?"}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But I think one of the reasons that the founders wanted this was that, like the English who had had problems with the monarch imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, inflicting cruel and unusual punishments, the founders also knew that was a risk, that there was abuse from the government in the United States. And so they also wanted those rights because originally in the Constitution, these rights were not protected against. And the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, which ensured that there would be protections against these cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail and excessive fines. If you look at the Eighth Amendment, there's three clauses, right? The excessive bail clause, the excessive fines clause, and the cruel and unusual punishments clause. And these all have one thing in common, which is that these are all penalties essentially that the government inflicts on people, usually as the result of either being accused of crime or of being convicted of crime. So if you've been arrested, you're waiting for trial, very often your only way to get out of jail before trial is to make bail."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you look at the Eighth Amendment, there's three clauses, right? The excessive bail clause, the excessive fines clause, and the cruel and unusual punishments clause. And these all have one thing in common, which is that these are all penalties essentially that the government inflicts on people, usually as the result of either being accused of crime or of being convicted of crime. So if you've been arrested, you're waiting for trial, very often your only way to get out of jail before trial is to make bail. And of course, after you've been convicted, the court might impose a fine on you or some other kind of punishment. And so the Eighth Amendment is designed to prevent the government from doing things that are excessive. When the government punishes a person, that's the most coercive thing the government does short of war, right?"}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if you've been arrested, you're waiting for trial, very often your only way to get out of jail before trial is to make bail. And of course, after you've been convicted, the court might impose a fine on you or some other kind of punishment. And so the Eighth Amendment is designed to prevent the government from doing things that are excessive. When the government punishes a person, that's the most coercive thing the government does short of war, right? Other than shooting you in battle, picking you up and throwing you in a jail cell is about as bad as it gets. And so the framers wanted to make sure that we had a constitutional protection when it comes to criminal punishment. So in a lot of cases in the Bill of Rights, you see the framers reacting to some historical evil that they hope to prevent."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When the government punishes a person, that's the most coercive thing the government does short of war, right? Other than shooting you in battle, picking you up and throwing you in a jail cell is about as bad as it gets. And so the framers wanted to make sure that we had a constitutional protection when it comes to criminal punishment. So in a lot of cases in the Bill of Rights, you see the framers reacting to some historical evil that they hope to prevent. For example, the Third Amendment says you can't quarter soldiers in private citizens' homes because that had been such a important tipping point in the American Revolution. Was there something that the framers had in mind as a particular historical evil that they wanted to prevent? Well, there was some historical evils."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in a lot of cases in the Bill of Rights, you see the framers reacting to some historical evil that they hope to prevent. For example, the Third Amendment says you can't quarter soldiers in private citizens' homes because that had been such a important tipping point in the American Revolution. Was there something that the framers had in mind as a particular historical evil that they wanted to prevent? Well, there was some historical evils. And the English Bill of Rights went into place in 1689. And when that went into place, there was actually a controversy in England around a person by the name of Titus Oates. Titus Oates was somebody who had made a false accusation, had committed perjury, resulted actually that allegation of the execution of 15 Catholics."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, there was some historical evils. And the English Bill of Rights went into place in 1689. And when that went into place, there was actually a controversy in England around a person by the name of Titus Oates. Titus Oates was somebody who had made a false accusation, had committed perjury, resulted actually that allegation of the execution of 15 Catholics. And the plot that he had alleged was one to assassinate the King of England. The question is what to do with Oates, right? Because as a sort of a moral matter, he's about as bad as it gets."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Titus Oates was somebody who had made a false accusation, had committed perjury, resulted actually that allegation of the execution of 15 Catholics. And the plot that he had alleged was one to assassinate the King of England. The question is what to do with Oates, right? Because as a sort of a moral matter, he's about as bad as it gets. In fact, in 2005, English historians voted him the worst Briton of the 17th century and the third worst Briton of the last thousand years or something like that. So a very bad guy. You could think of him as a sort of a serial killer."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Because as a sort of a moral matter, he's about as bad as it gets. In fact, in 2005, English historians voted him the worst Briton of the 17th century and the third worst Briton of the last thousand years or something like that. So a very bad guy. You could think of him as a sort of a serial killer. But the problem is that the actual crime he committed was the crime of perjury. And even though his perjury resulted in the deaths of many innocent people, nonetheless, he could only be convicted of perjury, which at the time was a misdemeanor, which meant that he could not be executed for his crime. So when it came time for his sentencing, the judge, Chief Justice Jeffries, who was a famous hanging judge from English history, says to Oates, well, Oates, we can't take your life, we can't take your limb, but we have something special prepared for you."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You could think of him as a sort of a serial killer. But the problem is that the actual crime he committed was the crime of perjury. And even though his perjury resulted in the deaths of many innocent people, nonetheless, he could only be convicted of perjury, which at the time was a misdemeanor, which meant that he could not be executed for his crime. So when it came time for his sentencing, the judge, Chief Justice Jeffries, who was a famous hanging judge from English history, says to Oates, well, Oates, we can't take your life, we can't take your limb, but we have something special prepared for you. And it turns out that what they had prepared for him was, number one, a huge fine. They fined him like 2000 marks. They sentenced that he be dragged across the city of London while being flogged."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So when it came time for his sentencing, the judge, Chief Justice Jeffries, who was a famous hanging judge from English history, says to Oates, well, Oates, we can't take your life, we can't take your limb, but we have something special prepared for you. And it turns out that what they had prepared for him was, number one, a huge fine. They fined him like 2000 marks. They sentenced that he be dragged across the city of London while being flogged. He was dragged from Aldgate to Newgate while being flogged. And then two days later, just as the scabs were starting to form on his wounds, he's dragged back across the city of London from Newgate to Tyburn again while being flogged. Many people think the hope was that he would die from the flogging, but like a cockroach in a nuclear war, he survived."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They sentenced that he be dragged across the city of London while being flogged. He was dragged from Aldgate to Newgate while being flogged. And then two days later, just as the scabs were starting to form on his wounds, he's dragged back across the city of London from Newgate to Tyburn again while being flogged. Many people think the hope was that he would die from the flogging, but like a cockroach in a nuclear war, he survived. This punishment was actually a very severe punishment. And after the English Bill of Rights was promulgated, the Titus Oates' punishment was challenged. And some of the members of the House of Lords actually called the punishment barbarous, inhuman, and unchristian, and contrary to the English Bill of Rights, and said that there was no precedent to warrant the punishments of whipping and committing to prison for life for the crime of perjury."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Many people think the hope was that he would die from the flogging, but like a cockroach in a nuclear war, he survived. This punishment was actually a very severe punishment. And after the English Bill of Rights was promulgated, the Titus Oates' punishment was challenged. And some of the members of the House of Lords actually called the punishment barbarous, inhuman, and unchristian, and contrary to the English Bill of Rights, and said that there was no precedent to warrant the punishments of whipping and committing to prison for life for the crime of perjury. This punishment was eventually remitted in the sense that Oates was later released. Although the House of Lords refused to vote to suspend the judgment against Oates because they hated him so much. They said, you know, it's so ill a man shouldn't get the benefit of any relief."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And some of the members of the House of Lords actually called the punishment barbarous, inhuman, and unchristian, and contrary to the English Bill of Rights, and said that there was no precedent to warrant the punishments of whipping and committing to prison for life for the crime of perjury. This punishment was eventually remitted in the sense that Oates was later released. Although the House of Lords refused to vote to suspend the judgment against Oates because they hated him so much. They said, you know, it's so ill a man shouldn't get the benefit of any relief. But they all agreed that the punishment was cruel and unusual. And what's interesting is in the debate, they say things like, this punishment is contrary to law and ancient practice. It is without precedent, and there'll be a bad precedent for the future."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They said, you know, it's so ill a man shouldn't get the benefit of any relief. But they all agreed that the punishment was cruel and unusual. And what's interesting is in the debate, they say things like, this punishment is contrary to law and ancient practice. It is without precedent, and there'll be a bad precedent for the future. So in other words, it's cruel. And the way we know it's cruel is because it's so much harsher than has previously been inflicted for the crime of perjury, right? So the Oates case shows us that when the words cruel and unusual were first used, they were used to describe punishments that are harsher than the common law would permit, or harsher than longstanding prior practice would permit."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It is without precedent, and there'll be a bad precedent for the future. So in other words, it's cruel. And the way we know it's cruel is because it's so much harsher than has previously been inflicted for the crime of perjury, right? So the Oates case shows us that when the words cruel and unusual were first used, they were used to describe punishments that are harsher than the common law would permit, or harsher than longstanding prior practice would permit. And this means that among other things, the cruel and unusual punishments clause is not limited to gruesome punishments like torture and the rack and all that kind of thing. Because in fact, the punishments inflicted on Oates, although they were very harsh for the crime of perjury, were not as harsh as some other punishments that the common law permitted for other crimes like treason. Wow, so that tells us a lot about the English context of cruel and unusual punishment."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the Oates case shows us that when the words cruel and unusual were first used, they were used to describe punishments that are harsher than the common law would permit, or harsher than longstanding prior practice would permit. And this means that among other things, the cruel and unusual punishments clause is not limited to gruesome punishments like torture and the rack and all that kind of thing. Because in fact, the punishments inflicted on Oates, although they were very harsh for the crime of perjury, were not as harsh as some other punishments that the common law permitted for other crimes like treason. Wow, so that tells us a lot about the English context of cruel and unusual punishment. Do we know what cruel and unusual meant to the framers of the US Bill of Rights? So punishments were cruel and unusual, again, if they're too harsh in light of longstanding prior practice for the crime for which they're inflicted. There's another problem with statutory law or with decisions of a judge or a king or a president for that matter, that's also really relevant when we think about the Eighth Amendment."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Wow, so that tells us a lot about the English context of cruel and unusual punishment. Do we know what cruel and unusual meant to the framers of the US Bill of Rights? So punishments were cruel and unusual, again, if they're too harsh in light of longstanding prior practice for the crime for which they're inflicted. There's another problem with statutory law or with decisions of a judge or a king or a president for that matter, that's also really relevant when we think about the Eighth Amendment. And that is sometimes the government gets really mad at someone, they either think of a person as an enemy of the state and they wanna inflict the worst punishment they can on that person, or perhaps there's a panic about a certain group in society. So for example, in American society recently, there have been panics about drug crime or panics about sex offenses. And every time that happens, the government tries to respond with new forms of punishment that are much, much harsher than what came before."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's another problem with statutory law or with decisions of a judge or a king or a president for that matter, that's also really relevant when we think about the Eighth Amendment. And that is sometimes the government gets really mad at someone, they either think of a person as an enemy of the state and they wanna inflict the worst punishment they can on that person, or perhaps there's a panic about a certain group in society. So for example, in American society recently, there have been panics about drug crime or panics about sex offenses. And every time that happens, the government tries to respond with new forms of punishment that are much, much harsher than what came before. And so the insight behind the Eighth Amendment is that when the government wants to inflict a new punishment, you have to compare it against longstanding prior practice. That is you have to compare it against the common law. So the common law was called the law of custom and long usage."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And every time that happens, the government tries to respond with new forms of punishment that are much, much harsher than what came before. And so the insight behind the Eighth Amendment is that when the government wants to inflict a new punishment, you have to compare it against longstanding prior practice. That is you have to compare it against the common law. So the common law was called the law of custom and long usage. So if something comported with the common law, it was usual. If it was contrary to the common law, it was unusual. And that's where we get the phrase cruel and unusual punishments is basically punishments that are cruel in light of or in comparison to longstanding prior practice."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the common law was called the law of custom and long usage. So if something comported with the common law, it was usual. If it was contrary to the common law, it was unusual. And that's where we get the phrase cruel and unusual punishments is basically punishments that are cruel in light of or in comparison to longstanding prior practice. So the basic point of the Eighth Amendment from a historical point of view is to prohibit the government from innovating in a cruel manner, making up new cruel punishments in response to some actual or perceived provocation by a criminal. When the US Bill of Rights was adopted many years later, many decades later, they had their own issues that they were struggling with. And so the history shows that the American founders probably meant something different than the English meant because it was done over a hundred years later, but no one knows exactly what was meant when they adopted that wording."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's where we get the phrase cruel and unusual punishments is basically punishments that are cruel in light of or in comparison to longstanding prior practice. So the basic point of the Eighth Amendment from a historical point of view is to prohibit the government from innovating in a cruel manner, making up new cruel punishments in response to some actual or perceived provocation by a criminal. When the US Bill of Rights was adopted many years later, many decades later, they had their own issues that they were struggling with. And so the history shows that the American founders probably meant something different than the English meant because it was done over a hundred years later, but no one knows exactly what was meant when they adopted that wording. To give an example, when the bill was debated in Congress, a delegate from South Carolina, a representative from South Carolina said that he objected to the words, nor cruel and unusual punishments because he said the import of them was too indefinite. And there was another legislator, Mr. Livermore from New Hampshire, who said that the clause seems to express a great deal of humanity, in which account I have no objection to it, but as it seems to have no meaning in it, I do not think it necessary. What is meant by the terms excessive bail?"}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the history shows that the American founders probably meant something different than the English meant because it was done over a hundred years later, but no one knows exactly what was meant when they adopted that wording. To give an example, when the bill was debated in Congress, a delegate from South Carolina, a representative from South Carolina said that he objected to the words, nor cruel and unusual punishments because he said the import of them was too indefinite. And there was another legislator, Mr. Livermore from New Hampshire, who said that the clause seems to express a great deal of humanity, in which account I have no objection to it, but as it seems to have no meaning in it, I do not think it necessary. What is meant by the terms excessive bail? He asked. Who are to be the judges? He also asked."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What is meant by the terms excessive bail? He asked. Who are to be the judges? He also asked. What is understood by excessive fines? It lies for the court to determine. And so that's really where we are today in a lot of ways."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He also asked. What is understood by excessive fines? It lies for the court to determine. And so that's really where we are today in a lot of ways. The court is still deciding, in this case, the US Supreme Court is still deciding what the Eighth Amendment language actually means today. The modern case law, especially starting in the 1970s, revolved a lot around the death penalty. And so the question was, is it still okay to execute people for various crimes short of murder?"}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so that's really where we are today in a lot of ways. The court is still deciding, in this case, the US Supreme Court is still deciding what the Eighth Amendment language actually means today. The modern case law, especially starting in the 1970s, revolved a lot around the death penalty. And so the question was, is it still okay to execute people for various crimes short of murder? Since the 70s, the court has continued to do that in a number of areas. So it said you can't execute the mentally disabled anymore, you can't execute minors, you can't execute anyone for a non-homicide offense. Although it's limited the death penalty in the name of current standards of decency, it's really not clear how the court has set about to determine whether a punishment meets current standards of decency."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the question was, is it still okay to execute people for various crimes short of murder? Since the 70s, the court has continued to do that in a number of areas. So it said you can't execute the mentally disabled anymore, you can't execute minors, you can't execute anyone for a non-homicide offense. Although it's limited the death penalty in the name of current standards of decency, it's really not clear how the court has set about to determine whether a punishment meets current standards of decency. When the court is kind of on its own, saying that a punishment violates current standards of decency, despite the fact that most democratically elected legislatures actually approve the practice, then it looks like the court's acting as sort of a political body. It's sort of led the court to ignore what I think is the real danger of cruelty, which is that when there's a public panic and the legislature responds by ratcheting up punishment to new and unprecedented levels of punishment, and that's actually happened quite a lot in the last 40 years. And every time there's a panic, you predictably see the legislatures coming up with new punishments that are much, much harsher than what came before."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Although it's limited the death penalty in the name of current standards of decency, it's really not clear how the court has set about to determine whether a punishment meets current standards of decency. When the court is kind of on its own, saying that a punishment violates current standards of decency, despite the fact that most democratically elected legislatures actually approve the practice, then it looks like the court's acting as sort of a political body. It's sort of led the court to ignore what I think is the real danger of cruelty, which is that when there's a public panic and the legislature responds by ratcheting up punishment to new and unprecedented levels of punishment, and that's actually happened quite a lot in the last 40 years. And every time there's a panic, you predictably see the legislatures coming up with new punishments that are much, much harsher than what came before. And so, for example, with regard to sex offenders, there are now a bunch of states that actually impose chemical castration as a form of punishment for sex offenders. Now, castration as a form of punishment fell out of usage in the 13th century. We're literally getting medieval on sex offenders, but the court can't do anything really to stop it, or at least hasn't, because these are very popular forms of punishment."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And every time there's a panic, you predictably see the legislatures coming up with new punishments that are much, much harsher than what came before. And so, for example, with regard to sex offenders, there are now a bunch of states that actually impose chemical castration as a form of punishment for sex offenders. Now, castration as a form of punishment fell out of usage in the 13th century. We're literally getting medieval on sex offenders, but the court can't do anything really to stop it, or at least hasn't, because these are very popular forms of punishment. Everyone hates sex offenders. The UN has actually decided that anything more than 15 days use of solitary confinement should not be permitted. Justice Anthony Kennedy actually raised the issue of solitary confinement in a recent opinion he authored for the Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We're literally getting medieval on sex offenders, but the court can't do anything really to stop it, or at least hasn't, because these are very popular forms of punishment. Everyone hates sex offenders. The UN has actually decided that anything more than 15 days use of solitary confinement should not be permitted. Justice Anthony Kennedy actually raised the issue of solitary confinement in a recent opinion he authored for the Supreme Court. He actually raised the issue on his own at oral argument at one point, talking about how long people actually spend in solitary confinement in American prisons, including on death row. You have cases actually where people are spending not just years, but sometimes decades on death row in these kinds of conditions. Justice Breyer just wrote a dissent in a case where the person had been on death row for more than 40 years, so literally four decades in these kinds of very harsh conditions of confinement."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Justice Anthony Kennedy actually raised the issue of solitary confinement in a recent opinion he authored for the Supreme Court. He actually raised the issue on his own at oral argument at one point, talking about how long people actually spend in solitary confinement in American prisons, including on death row. You have cases actually where people are spending not just years, but sometimes decades on death row in these kinds of conditions. Justice Breyer just wrote a dissent in a case where the person had been on death row for more than 40 years, so literally four decades in these kinds of very harsh conditions of confinement. Other countries have decided that that is not something that they want to permit, and they've actually set out a rule that anybody that's on death row for a certain number of years, for example, would have their sentence commuted to a life sentence because of the psychological aspect of sort of waiting for one's own death. In the Bill of Rights, this is the last of four amendments, actually, that are concerned with protections for the accused. So why do you think there's so much in the Bill of Rights about the justice system?"}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Justice Breyer just wrote a dissent in a case where the person had been on death row for more than 40 years, so literally four decades in these kinds of very harsh conditions of confinement. Other countries have decided that that is not something that they want to permit, and they've actually set out a rule that anybody that's on death row for a certain number of years, for example, would have their sentence commuted to a life sentence because of the psychological aspect of sort of waiting for one's own death. In the Bill of Rights, this is the last of four amendments, actually, that are concerned with protections for the accused. So why do you think there's so much in the Bill of Rights about the justice system? Were the framers particularly interested in making sure that the accused had rights? Yeah, they were, and in particular, Americans were very devoted to the idea of the common law as a source of rights, right? In fact, that's why we had the American Revolution in the first place, was that England was denying to Americans common law rights, like the right not to be taxed without representation in Parliament, but also, more specifically, to the criminal law, they were denying them the right to a jury trial in criminal cases."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So why do you think there's so much in the Bill of Rights about the justice system? Were the framers particularly interested in making sure that the accused had rights? Yeah, they were, and in particular, Americans were very devoted to the idea of the common law as a source of rights, right? In fact, that's why we had the American Revolution in the first place, was that England was denying to Americans common law rights, like the right not to be taxed without representation in Parliament, but also, more specifically, to the criminal law, they were denying them the right to a jury trial in criminal cases. And so Americans wanted to make sure that when the US Constitution was adopted, that those common law rights that had built up over time in England would be preserved in the new American constitutional order. And many of those rights had to do with criminal law, both criminal procedures, and to some degree, substantive criminal law, and of course, criminal punishments. And again, the reason gets back to sort of what I said at the beginning, which is that when the government punishes someone, that's about the worst thing it can do."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, that's why we had the American Revolution in the first place, was that England was denying to Americans common law rights, like the right not to be taxed without representation in Parliament, but also, more specifically, to the criminal law, they were denying them the right to a jury trial in criminal cases. And so Americans wanted to make sure that when the US Constitution was adopted, that those common law rights that had built up over time in England would be preserved in the new American constitutional order. And many of those rights had to do with criminal law, both criminal procedures, and to some degree, substantive criminal law, and of course, criminal punishments. And again, the reason gets back to sort of what I said at the beginning, which is that when the government punishes someone, that's about the worst thing it can do. And because the early Americans who framed the Constitution were very powerfully concerned with liberty, they wanted to make sure the government would preserve their liberty, protect their liberty, and not become tyrannical, right? And so one of the main ways that they wanted to make sure this happened was by limiting the power of the government to punish whoever it wanted to for any reason that it wanted to. And so we have a, really, the majority of the protections in the Bill of Rights have to do with the protections for criminal defendants."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And again, the reason gets back to sort of what I said at the beginning, which is that when the government punishes someone, that's about the worst thing it can do. And because the early Americans who framed the Constitution were very powerfully concerned with liberty, they wanted to make sure the government would preserve their liberty, protect their liberty, and not become tyrannical, right? And so one of the main ways that they wanted to make sure this happened was by limiting the power of the government to punish whoever it wanted to for any reason that it wanted to. And so we have a, really, the majority of the protections in the Bill of Rights have to do with the protections for criminal defendants. What about excessive bail and excessive fines? How can we define what kind of financial penalty is proportionate to a crime? The courts have said, essentially, they've looked at dictionary definitions."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so we have a, really, the majority of the protections in the Bill of Rights have to do with the protections for criminal defendants. What about excessive bail and excessive fines? How can we define what kind of financial penalty is proportionate to a crime? The courts have said, essentially, they've looked at dictionary definitions. Excessive means more than is necessary. One of the core principles, actually, go back to look at Bequeria's work in the 1760s. He talked about this idea of a scale of crimes and a scale of punishments, and he said that there should be proportionality between the two."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The courts have said, essentially, they've looked at dictionary definitions. Excessive means more than is necessary. One of the core principles, actually, go back to look at Bequeria's work in the 1760s. He talked about this idea of a scale of crimes and a scale of punishments, and he said that there should be proportionality between the two. And so that proportionality principle is one that we're really still wrestling with today. Now, the point of bail is not to punish someone, but rather just to make sure that they will appear at trial, right? And so the amount of money you have to impose for bail doesn't depend so much on what crime you committed, but what your financial resources are, right?"}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He talked about this idea of a scale of crimes and a scale of punishments, and he said that there should be proportionality between the two. And so that proportionality principle is one that we're really still wrestling with today. Now, the point of bail is not to punish someone, but rather just to make sure that they will appear at trial, right? And so the amount of money you have to impose for bail doesn't depend so much on what crime you committed, but what your financial resources are, right? It depends partially on the crime, too, but largely on your financial resources. So the amount of money necessary to make sure that a poor man appears at trial is probably gonna be much lower than the amount of money necessary to make sure that a rich man appears at trial. And so it's a standard that depends partly on the nature of the crime, but also partially on the nature of the offender."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the amount of money you have to impose for bail doesn't depend so much on what crime you committed, but what your financial resources are, right? It depends partially on the crime, too, but largely on your financial resources. So the amount of money necessary to make sure that a poor man appears at trial is probably gonna be much lower than the amount of money necessary to make sure that a rich man appears at trial. And so it's a standard that depends partly on the nature of the crime, but also partially on the nature of the offender. I imagine that what seemed like cruel and unusual punishment in the 18th century might not be what we consider cruel and unusual today. For example, we don't do whipping as a punishment anymore. How has what counts as cruel and unusual punishment changed over time?"}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so it's a standard that depends partly on the nature of the crime, but also partially on the nature of the offender. I imagine that what seemed like cruel and unusual punishment in the 18th century might not be what we consider cruel and unusual today. For example, we don't do whipping as a punishment anymore. How has what counts as cruel and unusual punishment changed over time? The law really changes gradually over time, as you know, and so when you look back at history, they actually had a large collection of pretty gruesome punishments back in the 18th century. And we had nonlethal corporal punishments. They used things like branding people."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How has what counts as cruel and unusual punishment changed over time? The law really changes gradually over time, as you know, and so when you look back at history, they actually had a large collection of pretty gruesome punishments back in the 18th century. And we had nonlethal corporal punishments. They used things like branding people. They, of course, were whipping slaves back then. Slavery was still around. This was well before the Civil War ended, the institution of slavery."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They used things like branding people. They, of course, were whipping slaves back then. Slavery was still around. This was well before the Civil War ended, the institution of slavery. And we also had things like ear cropping. People would get their ears cut off. In the Crimes Act of 1790, which was passed just the year before the ratification of the Eighth Amendment, the Congress actually authorized public whipping, lashing of people, and it also authorized the pillory, the same punishment that had been used against Titus Oates."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This was well before the Civil War ended, the institution of slavery. And we also had things like ear cropping. People would get their ears cut off. In the Crimes Act of 1790, which was passed just the year before the ratification of the Eighth Amendment, the Congress actually authorized public whipping, lashing of people, and it also authorized the pillory, the same punishment that had been used against Titus Oates. So there was these nonlethal corporal punishments, and really the death penalty is sort of the last vestige of a bodily punishment that the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court has read the Eighth Amendment to allow the use of capital punishment. That issue is still a very live one. Before the Supreme Court, we're now seeing challenges about lethal injection protocols."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the Crimes Act of 1790, which was passed just the year before the ratification of the Eighth Amendment, the Congress actually authorized public whipping, lashing of people, and it also authorized the pillory, the same punishment that had been used against Titus Oates. So there was these nonlethal corporal punishments, and really the death penalty is sort of the last vestige of a bodily punishment that the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court has read the Eighth Amendment to allow the use of capital punishment. That issue is still a very live one. Before the Supreme Court, we're now seeing challenges about lethal injection protocols. We saw a challenge to a protocol in Kentucky in 2008. We saw one to a protocol in Oklahoma in 2015. These, of course, are things that the Founding Fathers would never have envisioned."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Before the Supreme Court, we're now seeing challenges about lethal injection protocols. We saw a challenge to a protocol in Kentucky in 2008. We saw one to a protocol in Oklahoma in 2015. These, of course, are things that the Founding Fathers would never have envisioned. Lethal injection typically involves a three-drug cocktail. So there's a barbiturate, which is supposed to put you to sleep. There's a paralyzing agent, which paralyzes your body and also stops your lungs from moving."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These, of course, are things that the Founding Fathers would never have envisioned. Lethal injection typically involves a three-drug cocktail. So there's a barbiturate, which is supposed to put you to sleep. There's a paralyzing agent, which paralyzes your body and also stops your lungs from moving. And there's a heart-stopping agent. Give the offender all three, and they're supposed to die quickly and painlessly. But the problem is if the sedative doesn't put you completely, deeply unconscious, then the other two drugs are likely to make you suffer quite a bit before you die."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's a paralyzing agent, which paralyzes your body and also stops your lungs from moving. And there's a heart-stopping agent. Give the offender all three, and they're supposed to die quickly and painlessly. But the problem is if the sedative doesn't put you completely, deeply unconscious, then the other two drugs are likely to make you suffer quite a bit before you die. And so the question is, is this cruel and unusual, or is it not cruel and unusual? And to date, the Supreme Court has twice held that lethal injection is not cruel and unusual, and their main reason has been that the state's not trying to torture you to death. And so if maybe you're sometimes accidentally tortured to death, well, that's just too bad, but it's not a cruel and unusual punishment."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the problem is if the sedative doesn't put you completely, deeply unconscious, then the other two drugs are likely to make you suffer quite a bit before you die. And so the question is, is this cruel and unusual, or is it not cruel and unusual? And to date, the Supreme Court has twice held that lethal injection is not cruel and unusual, and their main reason has been that the state's not trying to torture you to death. And so if maybe you're sometimes accidentally tortured to death, well, that's just too bad, but it's not a cruel and unusual punishment. So the Supreme Court has approved various methods of execution. At the same time, however, the Eighth Amendment has been read to protect prisoners. So in general, the Eighth Amendment is sort of a protective shield that prohibits prison guards from gratuitously beating up inmates."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so if maybe you're sometimes accidentally tortured to death, well, that's just too bad, but it's not a cruel and unusual punishment. So the Supreme Court has approved various methods of execution. At the same time, however, the Eighth Amendment has been read to protect prisoners. So in general, the Eighth Amendment is sort of a protective shield that prohibits prison guards from gratuitously beating up inmates. It requires prisons to provide some level of healthcare to prisoners because they cannot get it themselves. They're sort of wards of the state. Once they're put in prison, requires inmates be fed and sheltered."}, {"video_title": "The Eighth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in general, the Eighth Amendment is sort of a protective shield that prohibits prison guards from gratuitously beating up inmates. It requires prisons to provide some level of healthcare to prisoners because they cannot get it themselves. They're sort of wards of the state. Once they're put in prison, requires inmates be fed and sheltered. So in a lot of ways, the Eighth Amendment is a protective shield, protecting inmates, but then in the use of the capital punishment, it becomes what I like to call kind of a, it's kind of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde kind of jurisprudence that the Eighth Amendment has right now. So we've learned that the Eighth Amendment seeks to limit the power of the government in meting out punishment to people who have been accused or convicted of a crime. Although it's hard to tell exactly what constitutes excessive fines or bail, in general, it's accepted that those punishments should be proportional to the crimes in question."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What we see here are two maps of congressional districts. On the left, we see some congressional districts in and around Austin, Texas. This black line shows us Travis County, where Austin, Texas is. And on this right map, we see the congressional districts in and around Chicago, Illinois. What I'd like you to do is pause this video and see if you see anything interesting about the shapes of these congressional districts. Well, some things might immediately jump out at you. Here in Chicago, Illinois, this fourth district in particular seems kind of fishy."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And on this right map, we see the congressional districts in and around Chicago, Illinois. What I'd like you to do is pause this video and see if you see anything interesting about the shapes of these congressional districts. Well, some things might immediately jump out at you. Here in Chicago, Illinois, this fourth district in particular seems kind of fishy. It's often known as the earmuff district. It has this northern part and this southern part. And then it's actually connected just by an interstate, not by the things on either side of that interstate."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Here in Chicago, Illinois, this fourth district in particular seems kind of fishy. It's often known as the earmuff district. It has this northern part and this southern part. And then it's actually connected just by an interstate, not by the things on either side of that interstate. So that doesn't seem like a natural shape for a congressional district. And then here in Austin, Texas, you see that the votes in Travis County are split amongst many congressional districts. And so the question that should be surfacing in your brain is why are these districts shaped that way?"}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then it's actually connected just by an interstate, not by the things on either side of that interstate. So that doesn't seem like a natural shape for a congressional district. And then here in Austin, Texas, you see that the votes in Travis County are split amongst many congressional districts. And so the question that should be surfacing in your brain is why are these districts shaped that way? And the answer that many people will give you is it's because of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, which is the idea of shaping districts to benefit one political party or another. Every 10 years, there's a US census."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the question that should be surfacing in your brain is why are these districts shaped that way? And the answer that many people will give you is it's because of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, which is the idea of shaping districts to benefit one political party or another. Every 10 years, there's a US census. And based on that census, different states might get a few more representatives or a few less representatives. And so state legislatures will often have to redistrict. And so that's when this occurs."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Every 10 years, there's a US census. And based on that census, different states might get a few more representatives or a few less representatives. And so state legislatures will often have to redistrict. And so that's when this occurs. And so the first question you might ask is, well, that's a very strange word. Where does it come from? And that goes all the way back to 1812 when the then governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, Gerry was how you pronounced his name, although now it's gerrymandering, he decided to sign the bill that would reapportion the state senate districts."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so that's when this occurs. And so the first question you might ask is, well, that's a very strange word. Where does it come from? And that goes all the way back to 1812 when the then governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, Gerry was how you pronounced his name, although now it's gerrymandering, he decided to sign the bill that would reapportion the state senate districts. And you have this one really strangely shaped district right over here that people said, hey, that looks like a salamander. And so they created a portmanteau, which is really just a combination of words, around Elbridge Gerry and the back half of salamander. So you have gerrymander, which is creating these districts to advantage one party or the other."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that goes all the way back to 1812 when the then governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, Gerry was how you pronounced his name, although now it's gerrymandering, he decided to sign the bill that would reapportion the state senate districts. And you have this one really strangely shaped district right over here that people said, hey, that looks like a salamander. And so they created a portmanteau, which is really just a combination of words, around Elbridge Gerry and the back half of salamander. So you have gerrymander, which is creating these districts to advantage one party or the other. Elbridge Gerry did it for the Democratic Republican Party against the Federalists, but now it's Republicans versus Democrats. So now let's go back to the two districts that we looked at and think about what are the implications of it? Who does the gerrymandering benefit?"}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you have gerrymander, which is creating these districts to advantage one party or the other. Elbridge Gerry did it for the Democratic Republican Party against the Federalists, but now it's Republicans versus Democrats. So now let's go back to the two districts that we looked at and think about what are the implications of it? Who does the gerrymandering benefit? So in the case of Austin, Texas, Austin, Texas is an urban area. Urban areas tend to lean more left, and it does lean more Democratic. It's actually more liberal than most urban areas in Texas."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Who does the gerrymandering benefit? So in the case of Austin, Texas, Austin, Texas is an urban area. Urban areas tend to lean more left, and it does lean more Democratic. It's actually more liberal than most urban areas in Texas. But it's surrounded by more rural areas that lean right. And so it would be advantageous, and it is advantageous for Republicans to split those Democratic votes amongst these Republican districts. In the case of Chicago, it's a little bit less obvious."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's actually more liberal than most urban areas in Texas. But it's surrounded by more rural areas that lean right. And so it would be advantageous, and it is advantageous for Republicans to split those Democratic votes amongst these Republican districts. In the case of Chicago, it's a little bit less obvious. This type of gerrymandering was done by a Democratic legislature, but it's a little bit less obvious what's going on here with the fourth district because it is actually surrounded by districts represented by Democrats. What you need to appreciate is when this gerrymandering is done, it's often done by sophisticated computer algorithms, and there's all sorts of implications of stretching one district or another. This is just one tactic that you see here, is taking a bunch of Democratic votes and diluting them amongst a bunch of Republican districts."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the case of Chicago, it's a little bit less obvious. This type of gerrymandering was done by a Democratic legislature, but it's a little bit less obvious what's going on here with the fourth district because it is actually surrounded by districts represented by Democrats. What you need to appreciate is when this gerrymandering is done, it's often done by sophisticated computer algorithms, and there's all sorts of implications of stretching one district or another. This is just one tactic that you see here, is taking a bunch of Democratic votes and diluting them amongst a bunch of Republican districts. You might see it the other way. You could have situations where you redistrict so that an incumbent no longer lives in their district, and so they wouldn't be the incumbent anymore. You might see redistricting to force two incumbents to go against each other."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is just one tactic that you see here, is taking a bunch of Democratic votes and diluting them amongst a bunch of Republican districts. You might see it the other way. You could have situations where you redistrict so that an incumbent no longer lives in their district, and so they wouldn't be the incumbent anymore. You might see redistricting to force two incumbents to go against each other. You might see redistricting where you're collecting pockets from certain constituencies so that you can make a district so that they would have representation, and that's the one that's often cited for the District Four right over here because these are heavily Hispanic areas around or in Chicago. Now, I'll leave you with a newspaper article from the Salem Gazette in 1813 that talks about at least how the Federalists felt about that first official gerrymandering. This is in response to Elbridge Gerry's signing of the bill to allow for that salamander-shaped district that advantaged the Democratic Republicans against the Federalists."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You might see redistricting to force two incumbents to go against each other. You might see redistricting where you're collecting pockets from certain constituencies so that you can make a district so that they would have representation, and that's the one that's often cited for the District Four right over here because these are heavily Hispanic areas around or in Chicago. Now, I'll leave you with a newspaper article from the Salem Gazette in 1813 that talks about at least how the Federalists felt about that first official gerrymandering. This is in response to Elbridge Gerry's signing of the bill to allow for that salamander-shaped district that advantaged the Democratic Republicans against the Federalists. Federalists, followers of Washington, again behold and shudder at the exhibition of this terrific dragon brought forth to swallow and devour your liberties and equal rights. You can see in the picture it actually does look like a dragon, they put wings on it. Unholy party spirit and inordinate love of power gave it birth."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is in response to Elbridge Gerry's signing of the bill to allow for that salamander-shaped district that advantaged the Democratic Republicans against the Federalists. Federalists, followers of Washington, again behold and shudder at the exhibition of this terrific dragon brought forth to swallow and devour your liberties and equal rights. You can see in the picture it actually does look like a dragon, they put wings on it. Unholy party spirit and inordinate love of power gave it birth. Your patriotism and hatred of tyranny must by one vigorous struggle strangle it in its infancy. The iniquitous law which cut up and severed this commonwealth into districts is kindred to the arbitrary deeds of Napoleon when he partitioned the territories of innocent nations to suit his sovereign will. You gotta remember, this is right around the time of Napoleon conquering much of Europe."}, {"video_title": "Gerrymandering   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Unholy party spirit and inordinate love of power gave it birth. Your patriotism and hatred of tyranny must by one vigorous struggle strangle it in its infancy. The iniquitous law which cut up and severed this commonwealth into districts is kindred to the arbitrary deeds of Napoleon when he partitioned the territories of innocent nations to suit his sovereign will. You gotta remember, this is right around the time of Napoleon conquering much of Europe. This law inflicted a grievous wound on the Constitution. It in fact subverts and changes our form of government which ceases to be Republican as long as an aristocratic House of Lords under the form of a Senate tyrannizes over the people and silences and stifles the voice of the majority. And then it goes on to say, will you then permit a party to disfranchise the people, to convert the Senate chamber into a fortress in which ambitious office seekers may entrench themselves and set at defiance the frowns of the people?"}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And just so that you can get the data yourself, they're all available at this document, which is hosted by the Department of Treasury, so you know that I'm not making up these numbers. But just to review, the deficit is really a measure of how much you are overspending in any given year. And so if you look at the deficit, and I'm going to focus on 2010 in this video. In 2010, the government spent, so the spending for the government in 2010 was about $3.5 to $3.6 trillion. And it brought in, mainly tax revenues, but it has a few other sources, but mainly tax revenues, it brought in about $2.2 trillion. So based on this, the overspending, or the amount of spending beyond the revenues, or the deficit in 2010 was $1.3 trillion. What I want to be clear on is this is only one way to account for spending versus revenues."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In 2010, the government spent, so the spending for the government in 2010 was about $3.5 to $3.6 trillion. And it brought in, mainly tax revenues, but it has a few other sources, but mainly tax revenues, it brought in about $2.2 trillion. So based on this, the overspending, or the amount of spending beyond the revenues, or the deficit in 2010 was $1.3 trillion. What I want to be clear on is this is only one way to account for spending versus revenues. And this is not the way that most companies would primarily report their own income over the course of the year, or their own cost, or their own loss over the course of the year. Most companies would not just have to account for their cash outlays, and that's all we're considering in this 3.5 to 3.6 trillion dollars. A traditional company would also have to include any other liabilities, or any other obligations they're taking on."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What I want to be clear on is this is only one way to account for spending versus revenues. And this is not the way that most companies would primarily report their own income over the course of the year, or their own cost, or their own loss over the course of the year. Most companies would not just have to account for their cash outlays, and that's all we're considering in this 3.5 to 3.6 trillion dollars. A traditional company would also have to include any other liabilities, or any other obligations they're taking on. For example, if I hire you and I promise to pay you $50,000 over the course of the next year, and I'm going to pay them to you in cash, but I also promise that when you retire, I'm going to give you a $10,000 per year pension, on a traditional income statement, I would not just expense the $50,000. I would definitely put that in my expenses, and the government would put that in their expenses. But I would also have to account for this liability that I'm taking on."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A traditional company would also have to include any other liabilities, or any other obligations they're taking on. For example, if I hire you and I promise to pay you $50,000 over the course of the next year, and I'm going to pay them to you in cash, but I also promise that when you retire, I'm going to give you a $10,000 per year pension, on a traditional income statement, I would not just expense the $50,000. I would definitely put that in my expenses, and the government would put that in their expenses. But I would also have to account for this liability that I'm taking on. I would also have to say, look, in order for me to be able to afford a $10,000 pension at some future date, I have to make some estimates about when you would retire, and how long you would live, and what interest I could get on money, and all of the rest. But I would have to say I would have to set aside some amount of money so that in the future I can meet that obligation. So maybe I have to set aside $2,000 this year and hope it grows properly over the course of the next 20, 30 years until you retire so that I can afford to pay you that much."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But I would also have to account for this liability that I'm taking on. I would also have to say, look, in order for me to be able to afford a $10,000 pension at some future date, I have to make some estimates about when you would retire, and how long you would live, and what interest I could get on money, and all of the rest. But I would have to say I would have to set aside some amount of money so that in the future I can meet that obligation. So maybe I have to set aside $2,000 this year and hope it grows properly over the course of the next 20, 30 years until you retire so that I can afford to pay you that much. Who knows? But I would also have to account for it right here, that extra liability. The government, in the calculation of the deficit, does not account for that extra liability."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So maybe I have to set aside $2,000 this year and hope it grows properly over the course of the next 20, 30 years until you retire so that I can afford to pay you that much. Who knows? But I would also have to account for it right here, that extra liability. The government, in the calculation of the deficit, does not account for that extra liability. And it is taking on other liabilities. It is making these pension promises to government employees. It has obligations to the veterans and veterans affairs and all of that."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The government, in the calculation of the deficit, does not account for that extra liability. And it is taking on other liabilities. It is making these pension promises to government employees. It has obligations to the veterans and veterans affairs and all of that. And that is not accounted for in the deficit. It is accounted for in the gross costs. And you see here, we said when we look at just the budget, we're talking $3.5 to $3.6 trillion."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It has obligations to the veterans and veterans affairs and all of that. And that is not accounted for in the deficit. It is accounted for in the gross costs. And you see here, we said when we look at just the budget, we're talking $3.5 to $3.6 trillion. That's direct cash outlays, or mostly direct cash outlays. If you include all of this other stuff, then it balloons to $4.5 trillion. So in a previous video, I mentioned that the government right now, for every dollar that it's spending, it has to borrow $0.40 of that dollar."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you see here, we said when we look at just the budget, we're talking $3.5 to $3.6 trillion. That's direct cash outlays, or mostly direct cash outlays. If you include all of this other stuff, then it balloons to $4.5 trillion. So in a previous video, I mentioned that the government right now, for every dollar that it's spending, it has to borrow $0.40 of that dollar. But if you really think about the total obligations that it has, and the total obligations being $4.5 trillion it took on, viewed that way, it only has about half of that. It only has about half of that coming in in revenue. So every dollar in revenue, the government is taking on an equal amount of obligations that year."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in a previous video, I mentioned that the government right now, for every dollar that it's spending, it has to borrow $0.40 of that dollar. But if you really think about the total obligations that it has, and the total obligations being $4.5 trillion it took on, viewed that way, it only has about half of that. It only has about half of that coming in in revenue. So every dollar in revenue, the government is taking on an equal amount of obligations that year. Some of that is going to express itself in terms of increased debt. And some of that is just going to show up as increased obligations. And you can see both of those things are increasing year after year after year."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So every dollar in revenue, the government is taking on an equal amount of obligations that year. Some of that is going to express itself in terms of increased debt. And some of that is just going to show up as increased obligations. And you can see both of those things are increasing year after year after year. And depending on who you talk to, which side of the political spectrum, some people will blame it on Bush. They'll say, look at this. The spending increased under Obama, which someone on the right would say."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you can see both of those things are increasing year after year after year. And depending on who you talk to, which side of the political spectrum, some people will blame it on Bush. They'll say, look at this. The spending increased under Obama, which someone on the right would say. But then someone on the left would say, yes. But the spending increased because we had to do all these bailouts. The economy started to tank at the end of 2008."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The spending increased under Obama, which someone on the right would say. But then someone on the left would say, yes. But the spending increased because we had to do all these bailouts. The economy started to tank at the end of 2008. We had to do all of these emergency things. As soon as the economy tanks, automatically the deficit position gets worse because you bring in less revenue. And not only do you bring in less revenue because corporate profits are down, fewer people are employed, people start earning less."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The economy started to tank at the end of 2008. We had to do all of these emergency things. As soon as the economy tanks, automatically the deficit position gets worse because you bring in less revenue. And not only do you bring in less revenue because corporate profits are down, fewer people are employed, people start earning less. But you also have higher expenses because all of these automatic obligations kick into effect. Unemployment benefits, Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, those increase. So deficits naturally get worse."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And not only do you bring in less revenue because corporate profits are down, fewer people are employed, people start earning less. But you also have higher expenses because all of these automatic obligations kick into effect. Unemployment benefits, Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, those increase. So deficits naturally get worse. But the whole point here is to say, regardless of what party you're on, things are getting worse and they don't seem to be getting better. And generally, you'll always see this net operating cost. Sometimes the net operating costs will look lower than the actual deficit like it did in 2008."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So deficits naturally get worse. But the whole point here is to say, regardless of what party you're on, things are getting worse and they don't seem to be getting better. And generally, you'll always see this net operating cost. Sometimes the net operating costs will look lower than the actual deficit like it did in 2008. And that's because there would be some type of actuarial or accounting re-estimate of the future obligations, maybe the pension obligations or whatever. But in most years, we're taking on more obligations than just our cash outlays. And that's why you see the operating costs so much higher than just the pure deficit right over here."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Sometimes the net operating costs will look lower than the actual deficit like it did in 2008. And that's because there would be some type of actuarial or accounting re-estimate of the future obligations, maybe the pension obligations or whatever. But in most years, we're taking on more obligations than just our cash outlays. And that's why you see the operating costs so much higher than just the pure deficit right over here. And this chart right over here actually goes into what the difference is, the actual difference. And you see that it's mainly things like liabilities for veterans' compensation, military and civilian employee benefits, government-sponsored enterprises. There's some downward revision of the TARP."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's why you see the operating costs so much higher than just the pure deficit right over here. And this chart right over here actually goes into what the difference is, the actual difference. And you see that it's mainly things like liabilities for veterans' compensation, military and civilian employee benefits, government-sponsored enterprises. There's some downward revision of the TARP. I don't think you can see that. So all of a sudden, you realize that the TARP is going to cost us more in the future than you thought it was going to be. Even though you don't spend that $86 billion this year, you realize that you have an $86 billion higher obligation."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's some downward revision of the TARP. I don't think you can see that. So all of a sudden, you realize that the TARP is going to cost us more in the future than you thought it was going to be. Even though you don't spend that $86 billion this year, you realize that you have an $86 billion higher obligation. And so if you add all of these, or I guess you subtract all of these from the budget deficit, then you're going to get the net operating costs. And you might already find that depressing. But the point of this video is actually that's just the beginning."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Even though you don't spend that $86 billion this year, you realize that you have an $86 billion higher obligation. And so if you add all of these, or I guess you subtract all of these from the budget deficit, then you're going to get the net operating costs. And you might already find that depressing. But the point of this video is actually that's just the beginning. Because if you look at where we're going, the trajectory, it gets even more depressing. Because not only do we have this huge budget deficit or these huge operating costs, this loss, I guess you could say, on an annual basis, but it's going to get worse. And it's going to get worse not just from the overspending, not just from the overspending on the government programs and defense and all of that, but because our debt is increasing so much that the interest, the amount we spent on interest, is only going to increase."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the point of this video is actually that's just the beginning. Because if you look at where we're going, the trajectory, it gets even more depressing. Because not only do we have this huge budget deficit or these huge operating costs, this loss, I guess you could say, on an annual basis, but it's going to get worse. And it's going to get worse not just from the overspending, not just from the overspending on the government programs and defense and all of that, but because our debt is increasing so much that the interest, the amount we spent on interest, is only going to increase. And that just makes matters worse. The more you spend on interest, the larger your deficits. The larger your deficits, the more you have to borrow, the more you have to spend on interest."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's going to get worse not just from the overspending, not just from the overspending on the government programs and defense and all of that, but because our debt is increasing so much that the interest, the amount we spent on interest, is only going to increase. And that just makes matters worse. The more you spend on interest, the larger your deficits. The larger your deficits, the more you have to borrow, the more you have to spend on interest. And this is a long timeline right here. Goes out to 2080. But it's pretty clear that something is going to give."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The larger your deficits, the more you have to borrow, the more you have to spend on interest. And this is a long timeline right here. Goes out to 2080. But it's pretty clear that something is going to give. So as a percentage of GDP, the size of the government has historically been around this, depending on different periods in history. But in the recent past, it's been in the 20% range. But if you just let things go the way they're going to go, and a lot of these are kind of mandatory spending, things we've already obligated ourselves to or what we think we've obligated ourselves to, it looks like the size of the government's really just going to take over the economy."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it's pretty clear that something is going to give. So as a percentage of GDP, the size of the government has historically been around this, depending on different periods in history. But in the recent past, it's been in the 20% range. But if you just let things go the way they're going to go, and a lot of these are kind of mandatory spending, things we've already obligated ourselves to or what we think we've obligated ourselves to, it looks like the size of the government's really just going to take over the economy. It's going to grow over the next 20, 30 years to 30%, 35%, 40% of the entire economy. Now, if that by itself is not scary or depressing enough for you, then we just have to look at this chart right over here. And we've already gone over some of this chart."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But if you just let things go the way they're going to go, and a lot of these are kind of mandatory spending, things we've already obligated ourselves to or what we think we've obligated ourselves to, it looks like the size of the government's really just going to take over the economy. It's going to grow over the next 20, 30 years to 30%, 35%, 40% of the entire economy. Now, if that by itself is not scary or depressing enough for you, then we just have to look at this chart right over here. And we've already gone over some of this chart. This is the gross costs. This is the total amount we're spending, outlays, cash outlays, and other obligations we're taking on and accounting for in some way in the present. And then you have the taxes that you're bringing in."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And we've already gone over some of this chart. This is the gross costs. This is the total amount we're spending, outlays, cash outlays, and other obligations we're taking on and accounting for in some way in the present. And then you have the taxes that you're bringing in. And you see this is your net operating costs that we calculated already. And then it shows your assets, the assets of the government, mainly buildings and land and things like that. The government has a lot of nice land and buildings."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then you have the taxes that you're bringing in. And you see this is your net operating costs that we calculated already. And then it shows your assets, the assets of the government, mainly buildings and land and things like that. The government has a lot of nice land and buildings. And then you also see property, plant and equipment, and all that, aircraft carriers, whatever you want to throw into the mix right over here. But then you see the debt. And there's been a lot of talk of the debt."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The government has a lot of nice land and buildings. And then you also see property, plant and equipment, and all that, aircraft carriers, whatever you want to throw into the mix right over here. But then you see the debt. And there's been a lot of talk of the debt. But you might be saying, wait, even in 2010, right now as we hit the debt ceiling, we have like $14.3 trillion. But didn't we have like $13 point something trillion in debt in 2010? Why does this only say $9 trillion?"}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there's been a lot of talk of the debt. But you might be saying, wait, even in 2010, right now as we hit the debt ceiling, we have like $14.3 trillion. But didn't we have like $13 point something trillion in debt in 2010? Why does this only say $9 trillion? That's because we had another $4 trillion in debt that is not held by the public. This is just debt held by the public. And the public includes things like foreign governments."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why does this only say $9 trillion? That's because we had another $4 trillion in debt that is not held by the public. This is just debt held by the public. And the public includes things like foreign governments. But there's another $4 trillion that is held by the government itself. So that is not accounted for. And that $4 trillion is mainly excess funds from the Social Security Trust that are all invested in treasuries."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the public includes things like foreign governments. But there's another $4 trillion that is held by the government itself. So that is not accounted for. And that $4 trillion is mainly excess funds from the Social Security Trust that are all invested in treasuries. But the government, at the end of the day, is responsible for the Social Security Trust. And so it is not accounted for right over here. So you have $9 trillion there."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that $4 trillion is mainly excess funds from the Social Security Trust that are all invested in treasuries. But the government, at the end of the day, is responsible for the Social Security Trust. And so it is not accounted for right over here. So you have $9 trillion there. You have another $6 trillion that is seldom talked about, which is benefits for federal employees and veterans. That's right over here. So huge obligations."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you have $9 trillion there. You have another $6 trillion that is seldom talked about, which is benefits for federal employees and veterans. That's right over here. So huge obligations. So a total of $16 trillion in liabilities. Now, if that by itself doesn't scare you enough or doesn't depress you enough, we just have to go down a few lines on this statement, and you'll see something that does. And this right here is the expected or the present value of the obligations for social insurance."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So huge obligations. So a total of $16 trillion in liabilities. Now, if that by itself doesn't scare you enough or doesn't depress you enough, we just have to go down a few lines on this statement, and you'll see something that does. And this right here is the expected or the present value of the obligations for social insurance. And the way that they talk about social insurance, it's both Social Security and things like Medicare. So these things that we've promised we would pay to people in the future, or at least that we've told people that we will pay them in the future. And the present value, and the easiest way to think about present value, and I've done videos that go into a little bit more depth on that, is how much money, given some assumptions, if you assume that if I put money aside and that money grows at some rate, how much money would I have to put aside in order to fund those obligations and this value over the next 75 years?"}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this right here is the expected or the present value of the obligations for social insurance. And the way that they talk about social insurance, it's both Social Security and things like Medicare. So these things that we've promised we would pay to people in the future, or at least that we've told people that we will pay them in the future. And the present value, and the easiest way to think about present value, and I've done videos that go into a little bit more depth on that, is how much money, given some assumptions, if you assume that if I put money aside and that money grows at some rate, how much money would I have to put aside in order to fund those obligations and this value over the next 75 years? And I want to make it clear. When I say, oh, 75 years, of course it's going to be a huge number. But remember, we're assuming that we can grow money."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the present value, and the easiest way to think about present value, and I've done videos that go into a little bit more depth on that, is how much money, given some assumptions, if you assume that if I put money aside and that money grows at some rate, how much money would I have to put aside in order to fund those obligations and this value over the next 75 years? And I want to make it clear. When I say, oh, 75 years, of course it's going to be a huge number. But remember, we're assuming that we can grow money. We're assuming that obligations that are 75 years from now, that if I have to pay someone $10 75 years from now, I don't have to put $10 aside. I might only have to put $0.50 or $1 aside, and assume that that $0.50 or $1 will grow by some percentage, so that by the time 75 years go by, I'll actually have that $10. So this is actually a discounted value."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But remember, we're assuming that we can grow money. We're assuming that obligations that are 75 years from now, that if I have to pay someone $10 75 years from now, I don't have to put $10 aside. I might only have to put $0.50 or $1 aside, and assume that that $0.50 or $1 will grow by some percentage, so that by the time 75 years go by, I'll actually have that $10. So this is actually a discounted value. This is assuming that the money that you could set aside today, that the obligation today, that it would grow to actually fulfill the actual amount that you have to pay. And this should scare you. These are huge numbers."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is actually a discounted value. This is assuming that the money that you could set aside today, that the obligation today, that it would grow to actually fulfill the actual amount that you have to pay. And this should scare you. These are huge numbers. This closed group are what they call the current participants. And we could read the footnotes. Includes current participants receiving and or are eligible to receive benefits for the Social Security and Medicare programs ages 15 and over at the start of the 75-year projection period."}, {"video_title": "Government's financial condition   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These are huge numbers. This closed group are what they call the current participants. And we could read the footnotes. Includes current participants receiving and or are eligible to receive benefits for the Social Security and Medicare programs ages 15 and over at the start of the 75-year projection period. So that's $43 trillion. Then open group, they have current and future participants. This is slightly lower, because it's including people who are going to be paying into the program and not necessarily taking out of the program."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When you first learn about American history, it sometimes seems like it might have been a very easy or somewhat obvious transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. But it was not. It was a very vigorous debate. As we've talked about in previous videos, the Articles of Confederation proves to be too weak in terms of a central government. You have events like Shea's Rebellion, which really highlights this. And then as we go into 1787, you have a constitutional convention, at first to maybe revise the Articles of Confederation, but eventually they draft a completely new constitution, the Constitution that we have today. And after it was drafted, after that convention, we get into this period of late 1787 and 1788, where you have this very vigorous debate between those who want to ratify the Constitution, often known as the Federalists, led by folks like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, famous for writing the Federalist Papers, which they publish in this time frame."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "As we've talked about in previous videos, the Articles of Confederation proves to be too weak in terms of a central government. You have events like Shea's Rebellion, which really highlights this. And then as we go into 1787, you have a constitutional convention, at first to maybe revise the Articles of Confederation, but eventually they draft a completely new constitution, the Constitution that we have today. And after it was drafted, after that convention, we get into this period of late 1787 and 1788, where you have this very vigorous debate between those who want to ratify the Constitution, often known as the Federalists, led by folks like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, famous for writing the Federalist Papers, which they publish in this time frame. And you also have the Anti-Federalists, or who will eventually be known as the Anti-Federalists, who are against the ratification and the adoption of the Constitution. And their writings, which are also published in this same time period, are known as now the Anti-Federalist Papers. And what I have here is an excerpt from what is perhaps the most famous of the Anti-Federalist Papers."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And after it was drafted, after that convention, we get into this period of late 1787 and 1788, where you have this very vigorous debate between those who want to ratify the Constitution, often known as the Federalists, led by folks like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, famous for writing the Federalist Papers, which they publish in this time frame. And you also have the Anti-Federalists, or who will eventually be known as the Anti-Federalists, who are against the ratification and the adoption of the Constitution. And their writings, which are also published in this same time period, are known as now the Anti-Federalist Papers. And what I have here is an excerpt from what is perhaps the most famous of the Anti-Federalist Papers. This is from Brutus I, published on the 18th of October, 1787. So right in this time period right over here, right after the Constitutional Convention had ended and the states were deciding whether to ratify it. And Brutus is the pen name of the author."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what I have here is an excerpt from what is perhaps the most famous of the Anti-Federalist Papers. This is from Brutus I, published on the 18th of October, 1787. So right in this time period right over here, right after the Constitutional Convention had ended and the states were deciding whether to ratify it. And Brutus is the pen name of the author. It's believed to either be Robert Yates, Melanchthon Smith, or John Williams from New York. But the reason why they picked the name Brutus is from history, Brutus is the Roman senator who was involved in assassinating Julius Caesar, keeping him from overthrowing the Republic. So in some ways, they view themselves as people who are protecting the Republic from tyranny."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Brutus is the pen name of the author. It's believed to either be Robert Yates, Melanchthon Smith, or John Williams from New York. But the reason why they picked the name Brutus is from history, Brutus is the Roman senator who was involved in assassinating Julius Caesar, keeping him from overthrowing the Republic. So in some ways, they view themselves as people who are protecting the Republic from tyranny. Now as I read this, keep in mind some of the ideas that we've looked at in other videos. The different types of democracy. A participatory democracy, where the citizens are close to the governance, to the decision making."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in some ways, they view themselves as people who are protecting the Republic from tyranny. Now as I read this, keep in mind some of the ideas that we've looked at in other videos. The different types of democracy. A participatory democracy, where the citizens are close to the governance, to the decision making. You have a pluralist democracy, where you have a vigorous debate between many, many different views. And you have an idea of an elite democracy, where the people are still sovereign, but they're being represented by a smaller, limited group of, I guess you could say elite, maybe more wealthy, more educated folks, who are trying or who should be acting in the interests of the citizens. So keep those in mind, and think about what type of democracy the author here favors and what they might be afraid of."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A participatory democracy, where the citizens are close to the governance, to the decision making. You have a pluralist democracy, where you have a vigorous debate between many, many different views. And you have an idea of an elite democracy, where the people are still sovereign, but they're being represented by a smaller, limited group of, I guess you could say elite, maybe more wealthy, more educated folks, who are trying or who should be acting in the interests of the citizens. So keep those in mind, and think about what type of democracy the author here favors and what they might be afraid of. And so Brutus wrote, to the citizens of the state of New York, the first question that presents itself on the subject is, whether the 13 United States should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction of one executive and judicial, or whether they should continue 13 confederated republics, under the direction and control of a supreme federal head, for certain defined national purposes only. So they're starting with this argument that this new constitution is really creating just one supreme government, instead of a confederation of sovereign republics that coordinate for certain defined national purposes. Goes on to write, this government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative, executive, and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So keep those in mind, and think about what type of democracy the author here favors and what they might be afraid of. And so Brutus wrote, to the citizens of the state of New York, the first question that presents itself on the subject is, whether the 13 United States should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction of one executive and judicial, or whether they should continue 13 confederated republics, under the direction and control of a supreme federal head, for certain defined national purposes only. So they're starting with this argument that this new constitution is really creating just one supreme government, instead of a confederation of sovereign republics that coordinate for certain defined national purposes. Goes on to write, this government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative, executive, and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends. The powers of the general legislature, so they're talking about what would eventually be the US Congress, as proposed by the Constitution, extend to every case that is of the least importance. There is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to free men, but what is within its power. It has the authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Goes on to write, this government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative, executive, and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends. The powers of the general legislature, so they're talking about what would eventually be the US Congress, as proposed by the Constitution, extend to every case that is of the least importance. There is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to free men, but what is within its power. It has the authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States. Nor can the Constitution or laws of any state, in any way, prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. So once again, saying, hey, this is a takeover. These 13 states are really becoming one state under the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It has the authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States. Nor can the Constitution or laws of any state, in any way, prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. So once again, saying, hey, this is a takeover. These 13 states are really becoming one state under the Constitution. This central government has so much power that it kind of makes the states a little bit irrelevant because they can't do something outside of what the central government thinks they should do. So then, having established this argument, and once again, this is just an excerpt. I encourage you to read all of Brutus' one."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These 13 states are really becoming one state under the Constitution. This central government has so much power that it kind of makes the states a little bit irrelevant because they can't do something outside of what the central government thinks they should do. So then, having established this argument, and once again, this is just an excerpt. I encourage you to read all of Brutus' one. It's quite fascinating. The author then argues why this is a bad idea, to have this takeover and have 13 sovereign states turn into essentially one. Let us now proceed to inquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the 13 United States should be reduced to one great republic or not."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I encourage you to read all of Brutus' one. It's quite fascinating. The author then argues why this is a bad idea, to have this takeover and have 13 sovereign states turn into essentially one. Let us now proceed to inquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the 13 United States should be reduced to one great republic or not. History furnishes no example of a free republic, anything like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent. So also was that of the Romans."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let us now proceed to inquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the 13 United States should be reduced to one great republic or not. History furnishes no example of a free republic, anything like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent. So also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country. And the consequence was that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world. So he's saying, hey, look, there's really no precedent for this."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country. And the consequence was that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world. So he's saying, hey, look, there's really no precedent for this. When you just had the Athenians governing themselves in a participatory model, yes, a republic seemed to work. But then once it started to extend its influence over surrounding cities, around surrounding regions, it became more tyrannical, and the Romans even more so. The territory of the United States is of vast extent."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So he's saying, hey, look, there's really no precedent for this. When you just had the Athenians governing themselves in a participatory model, yes, a republic seemed to work. But then once it started to extend its influence over surrounding cities, around surrounding regions, it became more tyrannical, and the Romans even more so. The territory of the United States is of vast extent. It now contains near three millions of souls and is capable of containing much more than 10 times that number. These might not seem like big numbers now. The United States is today over 100 times bigger."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The territory of the United States is of vast extent. It now contains near three millions of souls and is capable of containing much more than 10 times that number. These might not seem like big numbers now. The United States is today over 100 times bigger. But this was already quite a bit larger than, say, just ancient Athens. Is it practicable for a country so large and so numerous as they will soon become to elect a representation that will speak their sentiments without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The United States is today over 100 times bigger. But this was already quite a bit larger than, say, just ancient Athens. Is it practicable for a country so large and so numerous as they will soon become to elect a representation that will speak their sentiments without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not. So this is really interesting. So to the founding fathers, the idea of a republic was really a representative democracy and Brutus here is questioning, look, if you're governing over such a vast territory, can you have a representation that will truly speak the sentiments of the people? And if you do have true representation of the people, well, are you going to have so many representatives and so many interests that they're not going to be able to govern?"}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It certainly is not. So this is really interesting. So to the founding fathers, the idea of a republic was really a representative democracy and Brutus here is questioning, look, if you're governing over such a vast territory, can you have a representation that will truly speak the sentiments of the people? And if you do have true representation of the people, well, are you going to have so many representatives and so many interests that they're not going to be able to govern? So he's saying, hey, this is gonna be pluralist. And he does not view pluralism as a good thing. He's saying, hey, there's gonna be so many views, this is going to be ungovernable."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if you do have true representation of the people, well, are you going to have so many representatives and so many interests that they're not going to be able to govern? So he's saying, hey, this is gonna be pluralist. And he does not view pluralism as a good thing. He's saying, hey, there's gonna be so many views, this is going to be ungovernable. In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. So this is worth underlining again because this is a statement directly against the notion of pluralism. He says that in order for a republic to work, you have to have people of similar sentiments and interests, not different views."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's saying, hey, there's gonna be so many views, this is going to be ungovernable. In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. So this is worth underlining again because this is a statement directly against the notion of pluralism. He says that in order for a republic to work, you have to have people of similar sentiments and interests, not different views. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. So clearly did not think much of a pluralist democracy. This will retard the operations of government and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He says that in order for a republic to work, you have to have people of similar sentiments and interests, not different views. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. So clearly did not think much of a pluralist democracy. This will retard the operations of government and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. So he sees pluralism as a recipe for indecision and not being able to pass good laws or do things in the public interest. He goes on to say, in so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the control of the people and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves and oppressing them. So here it looks like the author is afraid of, you could kind of say an elite democracy, that it really wouldn't even be a republic that these people are going to start acting in their own interests."}, {"video_title": "Anti-Federalists and Brutus No. 1   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This will retard the operations of government and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. So he sees pluralism as a recipe for indecision and not being able to pass good laws or do things in the public interest. He goes on to say, in so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the control of the people and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves and oppressing them. So here it looks like the author is afraid of, you could kind of say an elite democracy, that it really wouldn't even be a republic that these people are going to start acting in their own interests. If you have to have representatives that represent such a large territory, they're going to be detached from the people that they're representing and then are just gonna think about their own aggrandization and they will actually oppress the people that they're supposed to represent. These are some of the reasons by which it appears that a free republic cannot long subsist over a country of the great extent of these states. If then this new constitution is calculated to consolidate the 13 states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted."}, {"video_title": "Federal and state powers and the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What we're going to do in this video is talk a little bit more about federal powers versus state powers. And as we've mentioned in other videos, this is a very relevant topic because even today, you'll have Supreme Court decisions being decided based on citing different parts of the Constitution or various amendments that seem to give one power or another more to the federal government or to the state government. And another important appreciation is the balance of power or the shifts of power between federal and state. It has historically changed over time, so it isn't this fixed thing. So in a previous video, we talked about the enumerated powers that the Constitution gives the federal government. In particular, we have talked about the Commerce Clause that allows the federal government to regulate commerce among the several states, which has turned out to be a much farther-reaching power than maybe the drafters of the Constitution intended. And then the thing that really gives power to even the enumerated powers is the Necessary and Proper Clause, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."}, {"video_title": "Federal and state powers and the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It has historically changed over time, so it isn't this fixed thing. So in a previous video, we talked about the enumerated powers that the Constitution gives the federal government. In particular, we have talked about the Commerce Clause that allows the federal government to regulate commerce among the several states, which has turned out to be a much farther-reaching power than maybe the drafters of the Constitution intended. And then the thing that really gives power to even the enumerated powers is the Necessary and Proper Clause, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. And so this is what we talk about, this Necessary and Proper Clause creates a lot of implied powers. So you can imagine, this isn't, the Necessary and Proper Clause is not something that made the Anti-Federalists very happy. They were worried about kind of power grabs by the federal government."}, {"video_title": "Federal and state powers and the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then the thing that really gives power to even the enumerated powers is the Necessary and Proper Clause, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. And so this is what we talk about, this Necessary and Proper Clause creates a lot of implied powers. So you can imagine, this isn't, the Necessary and Proper Clause is not something that made the Anti-Federalists very happy. They were worried about kind of power grabs by the federal government. And so you have the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments. And the Ninth and Tenth Amendment in particular are Anti-Federalists' attempt to limit the federal government's power. So the Ninth Amendment says, the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."}, {"video_title": "Federal and state powers and the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They were worried about kind of power grabs by the federal government. And so you have the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments. And the Ninth and Tenth Amendment in particular are Anti-Federalists' attempt to limit the federal government's power. So the Ninth Amendment says, the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. And even more important, the Tenth Amendment, and this is really speaking to federal versus state powers, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, so not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by it, the federal government, to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. And so you could view this as reserved powers for the states. It's an Anti-Federalist attempt to say, hey, you know, the federal government can't just do whatever it wants."}, {"video_title": "Federal and state powers and the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the Ninth Amendment says, the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. And even more important, the Tenth Amendment, and this is really speaking to federal versus state powers, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, so not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by it, the federal government, to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. And so you could view this as reserved powers for the states. It's an Anti-Federalist attempt to say, hey, you know, the federal government can't just do whatever it wants. It's trying to put a little bit of a check on the necessary and proper clause. So if you fast forward to the period right after the Civil War, you have the Thirteenth Amendment, which bans slavery, and then you have the Fourteenth Amendment, which is trying to bring slaves into society, allow them to be citizens, not just them, but their descendants. And this is in direct contradiction of the 1857 Dred Scott decision that we'll talk about in other videos, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that slaves and their descendants are not considered American citizens, and so they don't have a right to petition the government."}, {"video_title": "Federal and state powers and the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's an Anti-Federalist attempt to say, hey, you know, the federal government can't just do whatever it wants. It's trying to put a little bit of a check on the necessary and proper clause. So if you fast forward to the period right after the Civil War, you have the Thirteenth Amendment, which bans slavery, and then you have the Fourteenth Amendment, which is trying to bring slaves into society, allow them to be citizens, not just them, but their descendants. And this is in direct contradiction of the 1857 Dred Scott decision that we'll talk about in other videos, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that slaves and their descendants are not considered American citizens, and so they don't have a right to petition the government. But the Fourteenth Amendment says, all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law. And so this is actually putting constraints on states."}, {"video_title": "Federal and state powers and the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is in direct contradiction of the 1857 Dred Scott decision that we'll talk about in other videos, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that slaves and their descendants are not considered American citizens, and so they don't have a right to petition the government. But the Fourteenth Amendment says, all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law. And so this is actually putting constraints on states. And so as we'll see, even though this is in the context of the post-Civil War era, because it's putting constraints on states, this is one of the amendments that's often cited that puts more power in the hands of the federal government. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Fourteenth Amendment has been very relevant in some very current debates."}, {"video_title": "Federal and state powers and the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so this is actually putting constraints on states. And so as we'll see, even though this is in the context of the post-Civil War era, because it's putting constraints on states, this is one of the amendments that's often cited that puts more power in the hands of the federal government. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Fourteenth Amendment has been very relevant in some very current debates. This notion of that in any state, no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This is often known as the due process clause, and it's this idea that no state can really strip away some of the rights that might be articulated in say, the Bill of Rights, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This is often known as the equal protection clause."}, {"video_title": "Responsibilities of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In addition to citizenship rights, citizens also have responsibilities and obligations. Now, obligations are those activities that citizens must do, or they'll face legal repercussions. But responsibilities are activities that citizens should do to be good and productive members of society. So you won't get in trouble with the law if you don't do them, but your community will be a better place if you do. We'll talk more about the obligations of citizenship in another video. So for now, let's just focus on the responsibilities. What are those responsibilities?"}, {"video_title": "Responsibilities of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you won't get in trouble with the law if you don't do them, but your community will be a better place if you do. We'll talk more about the obligations of citizenship in another video. So for now, let's just focus on the responsibilities. What are those responsibilities? First, there's voting. It's not legally required that citizens vote in the United States, unlike in some other countries where citizens can get in trouble if they don't vote. But responsible citizens get involved with the decision-making process through voting."}, {"video_title": "Responsibilities of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What are those responsibilities? First, there's voting. It's not legally required that citizens vote in the United States, unlike in some other countries where citizens can get in trouble if they don't vote. But responsible citizens get involved with the decision-making process through voting. And to be a good voter, it's important that citizens are informed. They stay up to date on the issues that government is facing, and they research candidates and ballot measures before they vote. But voting isn't the only way to be a responsible citizen."}, {"video_title": "Responsibilities of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But responsible citizens get involved with the decision-making process through voting. And to be a good voter, it's important that citizens are informed. They stay up to date on the issues that government is facing, and they research candidates and ballot measures before they vote. But voting isn't the only way to be a responsible citizen. You can also do so by voicing your concerns. For example, something I did recently, and this is true, was emailing my city's transit department about a streetlight that wasn't functioning properly near where I live. The transit department came out and fixed it, and now there's less of a chance that an accident will happen in that intersection."}, {"video_title": "Responsibilities of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But voting isn't the only way to be a responsible citizen. You can also do so by voicing your concerns. For example, something I did recently, and this is true, was emailing my city's transit department about a streetlight that wasn't functioning properly near where I live. The transit department came out and fixed it, and now there's less of a chance that an accident will happen in that intersection. So when you notice a problem that may affect others, it's responsible to speak up and try to fix things. You can also act as a responsible citizen by volunteering. If you have a skill to teach others or time to give for a good cause, you can make your community a better place through your service."}, {"video_title": "Responsibilities of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The transit department came out and fixed it, and now there's less of a chance that an accident will happen in that intersection. So when you notice a problem that may affect others, it's responsible to speak up and try to fix things. You can also act as a responsible citizen by volunteering. If you have a skill to teach others or time to give for a good cause, you can make your community a better place through your service. Lastly, good citizens respect the rights and beliefs of others. They understand that in a democracy, not everyone may have the same opinions or concerns as they do, but everyone else is entitled to the same rights as they are. So that's a quick rundown of the responsibilities of citizenship."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So I'm here with Jeffrey Rose, the head of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and we're continuing to talk about Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, which talks about the powers of the president. And now we're going to focus a little bit on the first part of Section Two, which talks about, among other things, that the president shall be the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, essentially the military of the United States. And this seems like there's a bit of a balance here because in Article One, which describes the powers of the Congress in Section Eight, it says the Congress shall have power and it starts listing a bunch of stuff, a bunch of things, but one of the things that it lists is the power to declare war, grant letters of mark and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. So how do these two things fit together, Jeffrey? Well, they've led to the most dramatic constitutional controversies in American history. As Justice Robert Jackson put it in the Steel Seizure case, these cryptic words of the commander-in-chief clause have given rise to some of the most persistent controversies in our constitutional history. Everyone agrees that Congress has the power to declare war, and once war is declared, the president has total control over the conduct of the war."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So how do these two things fit together, Jeffrey? Well, they've led to the most dramatic constitutional controversies in American history. As Justice Robert Jackson put it in the Steel Seizure case, these cryptic words of the commander-in-chief clause have given rise to some of the most persistent controversies in our constitutional history. Everyone agrees that Congress has the power to declare war, and once war is declared, the president has total control over the conduct of the war. There's civilian control of the military. There's a single leader once the war starts. But how the president can act to deploy the troops in the face of emergencies when Congress is silent and how much Congress can constrain his power has led to rise to some huge constitutional controversies."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Everyone agrees that Congress has the power to declare war, and once war is declared, the president has total control over the conduct of the war. There's civilian control of the military. There's a single leader once the war starts. But how the president can act to deploy the troops in the face of emergencies when Congress is silent and how much Congress can constrain his power has led to rise to some huge constitutional controversies. And the Steel Seizure case that you talk about, this was in 1952, this was arguably talking about the Korean War. What was the context there? Why did this need to be ruled on?"}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But how the president can act to deploy the troops in the face of emergencies when Congress is silent and how much Congress can constrain his power has led to rise to some huge constitutional controversies. And the Steel Seizure case that you talk about, this was in 1952, this was arguably talking about the Korean War. What was the context there? Why did this need to be ruled on? Well, it's an amazing case, and the steel companies are going to go on strike, and President Truman decides this is a threat to national security because the army needs steel to conduct the Korean War. So he decides on his own, without congressional authorization, to seize the steel mills as part of his authority, his military authority, as commander-in-chief. And this goes up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court strikes him down."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why did this need to be ruled on? Well, it's an amazing case, and the steel companies are going to go on strike, and President Truman decides this is a threat to national security because the army needs steel to conduct the Korean War. So he decides on his own, without congressional authorization, to seize the steel mills as part of his authority, his military authority, as commander-in-chief. And this goes up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court strikes him down. They say he can't seize the steel mills on his own. Truman is shocked. He's appointed many of the justices."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this goes up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court strikes him down. They say he can't seize the steel mills on his own. Truman is shocked. He's appointed many of the justices. But the most influential opinion in the Steel Seizure case is the concurring opinion by Justice Robert Jackson. I want our listeners to go check it out on the web because it's so important. And Justice Jackson identified three categories of executive power that every law student learns, and they're easy to remember."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's appointed many of the justices. But the most influential opinion in the Steel Seizure case is the concurring opinion by Justice Robert Jackson. I want our listeners to go check it out on the web because it's so important. And Justice Jackson identified three categories of executive power that every law student learns, and they're easy to remember. Basically, when the president acts with congressional approval, his authority is at its height. When he acts in the face of congressional disapproval, his authority is at its lowest ebb. And when Congress has neither approved or disapproved, the president acts in a zone of twilight, as Justice Jackson said."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Justice Jackson identified three categories of executive power that every law student learns, and they're easy to remember. Basically, when the president acts with congressional approval, his authority is at its height. When he acts in the face of congressional disapproval, his authority is at its lowest ebb. And when Congress has neither approved or disapproved, the president acts in a zone of twilight, as Justice Jackson said. It sounds like the Twilight Zone, and I always think of that music, doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo. But it means that in the Steel Seizure case, although Congress had not authorized the seizure, and the president had no civilian authority to seize the steel mills, so he had no independent authority to rely on in the zone of twilight, and therefore, the court held he acted on Constitution. And Trubin's argument might have been, hey, look, the Constitution makes me the commander-in-chief."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And when Congress has neither approved or disapproved, the president acts in a zone of twilight, as Justice Jackson said. It sounds like the Twilight Zone, and I always think of that music, doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo. But it means that in the Steel Seizure case, although Congress had not authorized the seizure, and the president had no civilian authority to seize the steel mills, so he had no independent authority to rely on in the zone of twilight, and therefore, the court held he acted on Constitution. And Trubin's argument might have been, hey, look, the Constitution makes me the commander-in-chief. If I read that broadly, I should be able to do whatever I need to execute in times of war. Steel is a very important input into making the things that you need to execute your war with. And so if they're gonna go on strike, that's gonna keep me from being able to conduct our war."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Trubin's argument might have been, hey, look, the Constitution makes me the commander-in-chief. If I read that broadly, I should be able to do whatever I need to execute in times of war. Steel is a very important input into making the things that you need to execute your war with. And so if they're gonna go on strike, that's gonna keep me from being able to conduct our war. That's exactly right. That's just what he argued. And although some justices bought it, including Chief Justice Fred Vinson, whom Trubin had appointed, a majority of the Supreme Court said that civilian power over the military doesn't authorize the president to use his power in the United States in ways that might be helpful to the war effort."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so if they're gonna go on strike, that's gonna keep me from being able to conduct our war. That's exactly right. That's just what he argued. And although some justices bought it, including Chief Justice Fred Vinson, whom Trubin had appointed, a majority of the Supreme Court said that civilian power over the military doesn't authorize the president to use his power in the United States in ways that might be helpful to the war effort. He needs explicit congressional approval for that. It really upset President Trubin. He invited the whole Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And although some justices bought it, including Chief Justice Fred Vinson, whom Trubin had appointed, a majority of the Supreme Court said that civilian power over the military doesn't authorize the president to use his power in the United States in ways that might be helpful to the war effort. He needs explicit congressional approval for that. It really upset President Trubin. He invited the whole Supreme Court. They actually invited him for drinks at Justice Hugo Black's house after the decision came down. And Trubin sulked for a while, and he said, Hugo, I don't think much of your law, but by golly, this bourbon is good. So they kind of made up after the case."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He invited the whole Supreme Court. They actually invited him for drinks at Justice Hugo Black's house after the decision came down. And Trubin sulked for a while, and he said, Hugo, I don't think much of your law, but by golly, this bourbon is good. So they kind of made up after the case. And another, I guess, relevant, this isn't a case, but a resolution, is the War Powers Resolution 1973, historical context, we're nearing the end of the Vietnam War. What was the background there? Well, Congress was very upset that President Nixon had sent bombers into Cambodia without congressional approval."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they kind of made up after the case. And another, I guess, relevant, this isn't a case, but a resolution, is the War Powers Resolution 1973, historical context, we're nearing the end of the Vietnam War. What was the background there? Well, Congress was very upset that President Nixon had sent bombers into Cambodia without congressional approval. And there had been other disputes about the president's power in Vietnam. So Congress decided to try to codify exactly when the president could act to repel sudden attacks, which everyone agrees that he has the right to do. So Congress said, President, you've got to notify us 48 hours of the time that you send troops on your own, and you can only keep those troops on the ground for 30 days, except under extraordinary circumstances."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, Congress was very upset that President Nixon had sent bombers into Cambodia without congressional approval. And there had been other disputes about the president's power in Vietnam. So Congress decided to try to codify exactly when the president could act to repel sudden attacks, which everyone agrees that he has the right to do. So Congress said, President, you've got to notify us 48 hours of the time that you send troops on your own, and you can only keep those troops on the ground for 30 days, except under extraordinary circumstances. Otherwise, you need congressional approval. So despite this effort to kind of set out congressional approval for these extraordinary situations, some presidents have argued that the War Powers Resolution itself is unconstitutional as a violation of the president's commander in chief power. Others on the other side have said Congress is ceding too much power to the president, the Supreme Court has not struck down the War Powers Resolution, and presidents are supposed to abide by it, although sometimes they haven't."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So Congress said, President, you've got to notify us 48 hours of the time that you send troops on your own, and you can only keep those troops on the ground for 30 days, except under extraordinary circumstances. Otherwise, you need congressional approval. So despite this effort to kind of set out congressional approval for these extraordinary situations, some presidents have argued that the War Powers Resolution itself is unconstitutional as a violation of the president's commander in chief power. Others on the other side have said Congress is ceding too much power to the president, the Supreme Court has not struck down the War Powers Resolution, and presidents are supposed to abide by it, although sometimes they haven't. President Bill Clinton sent troops into Kosovo without following the War Powers Resolution and notifying Congress. What's the argument that a president would make that the War Powers, or anyone could make, that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, that somehow it conflicts with Section 2? The argument is that the president's unitary authority under Article 2 gives him complete power as commander in chief to conduct military operations as he thinks best, and that includes the ability to send troops into the field, despite the explicit provision in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that says that Congress has the power to declare war."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Others on the other side have said Congress is ceding too much power to the president, the Supreme Court has not struck down the War Powers Resolution, and presidents are supposed to abide by it, although sometimes they haven't. President Bill Clinton sent troops into Kosovo without following the War Powers Resolution and notifying Congress. What's the argument that a president would make that the War Powers, or anyone could make, that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, that somehow it conflicts with Section 2? The argument is that the president's unitary authority under Article 2 gives him complete power as commander in chief to conduct military operations as he thinks best, and that includes the ability to send troops into the field, despite the explicit provision in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that says that Congress has the power to declare war. So the unitary executive people and President George W. Bush's administration claim this explicitly, say that the president basically can do whatever he thinks is necessary to preserve national security. That led, after the terrorist attacks of 9-11, other presidents, including President Obama, said that because of the commander in chief clause, various attempts by Congress to limit the president's unitary authority were unconstitutional. And the Bush administration said the forbidding of torture of detainees, warrantless surveillance, the detention of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, all of these were unconstitutional."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The argument is that the president's unitary authority under Article 2 gives him complete power as commander in chief to conduct military operations as he thinks best, and that includes the ability to send troops into the field, despite the explicit provision in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that says that Congress has the power to declare war. So the unitary executive people and President George W. Bush's administration claim this explicitly, say that the president basically can do whatever he thinks is necessary to preserve national security. That led, after the terrorist attacks of 9-11, other presidents, including President Obama, said that because of the commander in chief clause, various attempts by Congress to limit the president's unitary authority were unconstitutional. And the Bush administration said the forbidding of torture of detainees, warrantless surveillance, the detention of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, all of these were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rejected many of those claims, including most famously in the Hamdan and Rumsfeld case in 2006, where the court said that the president could not set up military tribunals without congressional authorization. So the big lesson from all these cases is that when the president acts side by side with Congress, then the Supreme Court tends to uphold executive power, but when the president acts unilaterally on his own, especially in the face of congressional disapproval, the Supreme Court is likely to slap him down. But across all of this, there is a, even though these cases, especially the ones we cite, seem to limit presidential authority to some degree, there's this general notion even our founding fathers thought of, which is, yes, Congress has the power to declare war, but as the commander in chief, what if we're suddenly attacked by someone?"}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the Bush administration said the forbidding of torture of detainees, warrantless surveillance, the detention of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, all of these were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rejected many of those claims, including most famously in the Hamdan and Rumsfeld case in 2006, where the court said that the president could not set up military tribunals without congressional authorization. So the big lesson from all these cases is that when the president acts side by side with Congress, then the Supreme Court tends to uphold executive power, but when the president acts unilaterally on his own, especially in the face of congressional disapproval, the Supreme Court is likely to slap him down. But across all of this, there is a, even though these cases, especially the ones we cite, seem to limit presidential authority to some degree, there's this general notion even our founding fathers thought of, which is, yes, Congress has the power to declare war, but as the commander in chief, what if we're suddenly attacked by someone? Obviously you don't want to go through the process of getting all the congressmen together in a vote. You need to be able to act quickly. So it has always been understood that as commander in chief, the president could engage in conflict quite quickly."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But across all of this, there is a, even though these cases, especially the ones we cite, seem to limit presidential authority to some degree, there's this general notion even our founding fathers thought of, which is, yes, Congress has the power to declare war, but as the commander in chief, what if we're suddenly attacked by someone? Obviously you don't want to go through the process of getting all the congressmen together in a vote. You need to be able to act quickly. So it has always been understood that as commander in chief, the president could engage in conflict quite quickly. No question about it, and presidents have done so from the beginning. The response to 9-11 is a famous example as well, but many of the framers thought that Congress's approval was necessary for serious wars. The War of 1812, there was a former declaration, but there were lesser uses of force, like the war with France in 1798, conflict with the Barbary states, in Tripoli, in Algeria, conflict with Native American tribes."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it has always been understood that as commander in chief, the president could engage in conflict quite quickly. No question about it, and presidents have done so from the beginning. The response to 9-11 is a famous example as well, but many of the framers thought that Congress's approval was necessary for serious wars. The War of 1812, there was a former declaration, but there were lesser uses of force, like the war with France in 1798, conflict with the Barbary states, in Tripoli, in Algeria, conflict with Native American tribes. All of these are approved by Congress, although without formal declarations. In the modern era, though, things have really changed, and presidents have used military force without express consent from Congress on lots of occasions. The Korean War, Libya, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Noriega, all of these are cases where the president has used force without congressional authorization, and they haven't had a formal declaration of war since World War II."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The War of 1812, there was a former declaration, but there were lesser uses of force, like the war with France in 1798, conflict with the Barbary states, in Tripoli, in Algeria, conflict with Native American tribes. All of these are approved by Congress, although without formal declarations. In the modern era, though, things have really changed, and presidents have used military force without express consent from Congress on lots of occasions. The Korean War, Libya, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Noriega, all of these are cases where the president has used force without congressional authorization, and they haven't had a formal declaration of war since World War II. I mean, that statement, I think, is worth writing down. That's why I'm here. Okay, let's write it down."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Korean War, Libya, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Noriega, all of these are cases where the president has used force without congressional authorization, and they haven't had a formal declaration of war since World War II. I mean, that statement, I think, is worth writing down. That's why I'm here. Okay, let's write it down. Since World War II, I mean, when you say that, to me, it's like, well, what's... it kind of feels like, well, we've clearly had what you and I would consider wars since World War II, Korea, Vietnam War, obviously, post-9-11, what happened in Afghanistan, we have the Iraq War, actually, we have both the Iraq Wars, and you've had all sorts of military action, whether we're talking about drone strikes or kind of very surgical interventions, and all of those were done without a formal declaration of war by Congress. So, to what degree does this even matter anymore? It seems like in modern times, presidents are able to do what they need to do militarily."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay, let's write it down. Since World War II, I mean, when you say that, to me, it's like, well, what's... it kind of feels like, well, we've clearly had what you and I would consider wars since World War II, Korea, Vietnam War, obviously, post-9-11, what happened in Afghanistan, we have the Iraq War, actually, we have both the Iraq Wars, and you've had all sorts of military action, whether we're talking about drone strikes or kind of very surgical interventions, and all of those were done without a formal declaration of war by Congress. So, to what degree does this even matter anymore? It seems like in modern times, presidents are able to do what they need to do militarily. Well, that seems right. Now, that's not to say Congress hasn't acted. Many of the wars we've talked about have had informal statutory authorization, including, most famously recently, the authorization of the use of military force after 9-11, which was said to authorize a lot of what happened after 9-11, and it's now contested whether that continues to authorize the war, not against Al-Qaeda, which it was originally passed for, but also against ISIS."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It seems like in modern times, presidents are able to do what they need to do militarily. Well, that seems right. Now, that's not to say Congress hasn't acted. Many of the wars we've talked about have had informal statutory authorization, including, most famously recently, the authorization of the use of military force after 9-11, which was said to authorize a lot of what happened after 9-11, and it's now contested whether that continues to authorize the war, not against Al-Qaeda, which it was originally passed for, but also against ISIS. But it certainly seems to be the case that formal declarations of war have now been replaced with these more informal authorizations, or even with presidential unilateral action. And I guess maybe one argument there is that in some of these wars, it gives more flexibility to the president to be flexible, and there might not even be a state to declare war against. That's true, although there have been a bunch of these wars where there are clear states, Korea, Libya, Granada, Lebanon."}, {"video_title": "The President as Commander-in-Chief   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Many of the wars we've talked about have had informal statutory authorization, including, most famously recently, the authorization of the use of military force after 9-11, which was said to authorize a lot of what happened after 9-11, and it's now contested whether that continues to authorize the war, not against Al-Qaeda, which it was originally passed for, but also against ISIS. But it certainly seems to be the case that formal declarations of war have now been replaced with these more informal authorizations, or even with presidential unilateral action. And I guess maybe one argument there is that in some of these wars, it gives more flexibility to the president to be flexible, and there might not even be a state to declare war against. That's true, although there have been a bunch of these wars where there are clear states, Korea, Libya, Granada, Lebanon. More literalist conceptions of the president say the president could have and should have asked for formal declarations of war, but that's not the way that the modern executive has evolved. Fascinating. Well, thanks so much, Jeffrey."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What we're going to focus on in this video is the idea of impeachment, what it is and how it works, and with a little bit of historical background. So before we go into impeachment, let's just review some key ideas about the US government. We have this idea of separation of powers, where you have these three somewhat independent branches of government. You have the executive branch, headed by the President of the United States, in charge of running the state, running the government. You have the legislative branch, which in the United States has two houses. You have the House of Representatives and you have the Senate. And it's in charge of passing laws and deciding on the budget that the government, that the executive branch uses to run the government."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have the executive branch, headed by the President of the United States, in charge of running the state, running the government. You have the legislative branch, which in the United States has two houses. You have the House of Representatives and you have the Senate. And it's in charge of passing laws and deciding on the budget that the government, that the executive branch uses to run the government. And we have the judicial branch, which is the US Supreme Court. And related to this idea of separation of powers, they're not completely independent, but it's designed to be in a way that not one group or no one group can overrun the others. And what helps them do this is this idea of checks and balances."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's in charge of passing laws and deciding on the budget that the government, that the executive branch uses to run the government. And we have the judicial branch, which is the US Supreme Court. And related to this idea of separation of powers, they're not completely independent, but it's designed to be in a way that not one group or no one group can overrun the others. And what helps them do this is this idea of checks and balances. That, for example, the legislative can pass a law, but the executive branch can veto it, but then the legislative can override that veto. You have the judicial branch that can decide on the constitutionality of a law that the legislative branch passes or even an action that the executive branch takes. And it can even interpret the laws that have already been passed."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what helps them do this is this idea of checks and balances. That, for example, the legislative can pass a law, but the executive branch can veto it, but then the legislative can override that veto. You have the judicial branch that can decide on the constitutionality of a law that the legislative branch passes or even an action that the executive branch takes. And it can even interpret the laws that have already been passed. The executive branch can appoint the members of the US Supreme Court. So you see this idea of checks and balances. And perhaps the biggest check that the legislative branch has is the idea of impeachment."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it can even interpret the laws that have already been passed. The executive branch can appoint the members of the US Supreme Court. So you see this idea of checks and balances. And perhaps the biggest check that the legislative branch has is the idea of impeachment. So what is it? So some people believe or are under the impression that impeachment is, if someone gets impeached, they are removed from office. That is not the case."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And perhaps the biggest check that the legislative branch has is the idea of impeachment. So what is it? So some people believe or are under the impression that impeachment is, if someone gets impeached, they are removed from office. That is not the case. Impeachment is really a formal accusation. In legal terms, you might hear the word indictment. Indictment is a formal accusation."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That is not the case. Impeachment is really a formal accusation. In legal terms, you might hear the word indictment. Indictment is a formal accusation. And so if the US House of Representatives with the majority vote decides to make a formal accusation against, say, the president, that would be impeachment. But even if that passes, then the Senate will try the president to decide if they will actually be convicted. So once the indictment happens, and this would be the House that does this with just a simple majority, then the Senate, so this is the Senate right over here, they're going to decide whether to convict the individual, which could be the president, or they might acquit, which say that formal accusation is not valid."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Indictment is a formal accusation. And so if the US House of Representatives with the majority vote decides to make a formal accusation against, say, the president, that would be impeachment. But even if that passes, then the Senate will try the president to decide if they will actually be convicted. So once the indictment happens, and this would be the House that does this with just a simple majority, then the Senate, so this is the Senate right over here, they're going to decide whether to convict the individual, which could be the president, or they might acquit, which say that formal accusation is not valid. Now, another thing to appreciate is the Senate can't send the president to jail. But what they can do is remove them from office and keep them from holding office in the future. Now, historically, only two presidents have been impeached."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So once the indictment happens, and this would be the House that does this with just a simple majority, then the Senate, so this is the Senate right over here, they're going to decide whether to convict the individual, which could be the president, or they might acquit, which say that formal accusation is not valid. Now, another thing to appreciate is the Senate can't send the president to jail. But what they can do is remove them from office and keep them from holding office in the future. Now, historically, only two presidents have been impeached. This right over here is a drawing of the impeachment proceedings for President Andrew Johnson in 1869, 17th president of the United States. And he was impeached, which means the House of Representatives had a majority saying that he did a high crime and misdemeanor, and we'll talk more about that in a little bit, which officially, by doing that indictment, that made it an impeachment. So he has been officially impeached."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, historically, only two presidents have been impeached. This right over here is a drawing of the impeachment proceedings for President Andrew Johnson in 1869, 17th president of the United States. And he was impeached, which means the House of Representatives had a majority saying that he did a high crime and misdemeanor, and we'll talk more about that in a little bit, which officially, by doing that indictment, that made it an impeachment. So he has been officially impeached. They claim that he violated the Tenure of Office Act, which prevented the president from firing cabinet members without congressional permission but he decided to fire his secretary of war, which is now called the Secretary of Defense, without congressional approval, and so they impeached him. But he did not get convicted. He was acquitted."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So he has been officially impeached. They claim that he violated the Tenure of Office Act, which prevented the president from firing cabinet members without congressional permission but he decided to fire his secretary of war, which is now called the Secretary of Defense, without congressional approval, and so they impeached him. But he did not get convicted. He was acquitted. The Senate was not able to get the 2 3rds majority. The other president to be impeached is much more recent. This is President Bill Clinton."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He was acquitted. The Senate was not able to get the 2 3rds majority. The other president to be impeached is much more recent. This is President Bill Clinton. In 1998, the US House of Representatives, with a simple majority, was able to impeach him on accusations of obstruction of justice, so that, you can imagine, is something that prevents a prosecutor from, say, finding information, and perjury, which is lying under oath. But once again, even though he was impeached, when it went to the Senate, they weren't able to get the 2 3rds supermajority to remove him from office. So neither of them, even though they were both impeached, were actually removed from office."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is President Bill Clinton. In 1998, the US House of Representatives, with a simple majority, was able to impeach him on accusations of obstruction of justice, so that, you can imagine, is something that prevents a prosecutor from, say, finding information, and perjury, which is lying under oath. But once again, even though he was impeached, when it went to the Senate, they weren't able to get the 2 3rds supermajority to remove him from office. So neither of them, even though they were both impeached, were actually removed from office. The closest that a president actually got removed from office from something that was like impeachment was Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon was about to be impeached, but he resigned instead of having to go through the impeachment proceedings and then possibly getting convicted. But to really appreciate what impeachment is, let's just go straight to the original text in the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So neither of them, even though they were both impeached, were actually removed from office. The closest that a president actually got removed from office from something that was like impeachment was Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon was about to be impeached, but he resigned instead of having to go through the impeachment proceedings and then possibly getting convicted. But to really appreciate what impeachment is, let's just go straight to the original text in the Constitution. This is from Article I, Section 2, Clause 5. The House of Representatives shall choose, and this is actually how they spelled the word choose in the Constitution, the House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But to really appreciate what impeachment is, let's just go straight to the original text in the Constitution. This is from Article I, Section 2, Clause 5. The House of Representatives shall choose, and this is actually how they spelled the word choose in the Constitution, the House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. So once again, the impeachment is just the formal accusation. It actually gets tried by the Senate to decide whether the person is actually guilty of that accusation. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. So once again, the impeachment is just the formal accusation. It actually gets tried by the Senate to decide whether the person is actually guilty of that accusation. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. So once again, we often associate impeachment with the President, but this is making clear it's not just about impeaching the President. When it is the President who's being tried, it would be the Chief Justice who presides over the proceedings in the Senate."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. So once again, we often associate impeachment with the President, but this is making clear it's not just about impeaching the President. When it is the President who's being tried, it would be the Chief Justice who presides over the proceedings in the Senate. And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of 2 3rds of the members present. So in the House, if they can get to over 50%, then the accusation is formal, the person is essentially being indicted, which is called impeachment, but they're not going to be convicted without 2 3rds of the Senate. I encourage you to think about why the threshold here is higher, why the founders of our country decided to make this threshold 2 3rds instead of a simple majority."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When it is the President who's being tried, it would be the Chief Justice who presides over the proceedings in the Senate. And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of 2 3rds of the members present. So in the House, if they can get to over 50%, then the accusation is formal, the person is essentially being indicted, which is called impeachment, but they're not going to be convicted without 2 3rds of the Senate. I encourage you to think about why the threshold here is higher, why the founders of our country decided to make this threshold 2 3rds instead of a simple majority. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to the law. So here they're saying the most that the Senate can do through the impeachment proceedings is remove them from office and maybe prevent them from holding any other office, but they can't send them to jail the same way that the traditional legal system could, but if someone really did commit a crime, they still will be subject to the traditional legal system."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I encourage you to think about why the threshold here is higher, why the founders of our country decided to make this threshold 2 3rds instead of a simple majority. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to the law. So here they're saying the most that the Senate can do through the impeachment proceedings is remove them from office and maybe prevent them from holding any other office, but they can't send them to jail the same way that the traditional legal system could, but if someone really did commit a crime, they still will be subject to the traditional legal system. Finally, we see here in Article 2, the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And there's actually two points of ambiguity here. Who falls under all civil officers of the United States?"}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So here they're saying the most that the Senate can do through the impeachment proceedings is remove them from office and maybe prevent them from holding any other office, but they can't send them to jail the same way that the traditional legal system could, but if someone really did commit a crime, they still will be subject to the traditional legal system. Finally, we see here in Article 2, the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And there's actually two points of ambiguity here. Who falls under all civil officers of the United States? Does a member of Congress fall into that category? This is actually a matter of some debate. And what is a high crime and misdemeanor?"}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Who falls under all civil officers of the United States? Does a member of Congress fall into that category? This is actually a matter of some debate. And what is a high crime and misdemeanor? Most people understand what treason and bribery are, but what is a high crime and misdemeanor? And this has been a subject of debate. What is an impeachable offense?"}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what is a high crime and misdemeanor? Most people understand what treason and bribery are, but what is a high crime and misdemeanor? And this has been a subject of debate. What is an impeachable offense? And to answer that question, I'll leave you with a quote from Gerald Ford, who became President when Richard Nixon resigned because he was about to be impeached, and this is what he had to say. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history. Conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body, the Senate, considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office."}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What is an impeachable offense? And to answer that question, I'll leave you with a quote from Gerald Ford, who became President when Richard Nixon resigned because he was about to be impeached, and this is what he had to say. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history. Conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body, the Senate, considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office. So he's taking a very pragmatic stance here. You have this notion of high crimes and misdemeanors. What does that mean?"}, {"video_title": "Impeachment   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body, the Senate, considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office. So he's taking a very pragmatic stance here. You have this notion of high crimes and misdemeanors. What does that mean? And Gerald Ford is saying, well, whatever the House of Representatives thinks that means. And so an interesting question is, how susceptible does this make the notion of impeachment to politics? And is that okay?"}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 2)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In this video, we're going to continue to see that argument that not only is a republic better, but if you're going to have a republic, it's better to have a large republic. In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large, the large republic, than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried. And the suffrages of the people being more free will be more likely to center in men who possess the most attractive merit, once again, elite democracy, and the most diffusive and established characters, once again, elite democracy. So here he's making the argument that not only in a large republic will you have a better choice of candidates, but because the candidates have to appeal each to a large number of people, that they're less likely to come to power through shady dealings, and you're most likely to get the best folks. It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. So he's saying, hey, look, there's, as in all things, there's kind of a moderate middle ground. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests, as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 2)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So here he's making the argument that not only in a large republic will you have a better choice of candidates, but because the candidates have to appeal each to a large number of people, that they're less likely to come to power through shady dealings, and you're most likely to get the best folks. It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. So he's saying, hey, look, there's, as in all things, there's kind of a moderate middle ground. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests, as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal constitution forms a happy combination in this respect. The great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local, and particular to the state legislatures. So what he's saying is that the constitution offers this really nice balance here."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 2)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests, as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal constitution forms a happy combination in this respect. The great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local, and particular to the state legislatures. So what he's saying is that the constitution offers this really nice balance here. You can have the people participating at the national level who are interested in the great and aggregate interests, and it's okay if those folks aren't completely attached to what is happening at home, the local interests. In fact, he'd probably prefer that they're not attached too much to the local interests, but the local interests could be focused at the state legislatures, which the constitution provides for. The other point of difference, so once again, he's referring to the difference between a republican government and a pure democracy."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 2)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what he's saying is that the constitution offers this really nice balance here. You can have the people participating at the national level who are interested in the great and aggregate interests, and it's okay if those folks aren't completely attached to what is happening at home, the local interests. In fact, he'd probably prefer that they're not attached too much to the local interests, but the local interests could be focused at the state legislatures, which the constitution provides for. The other point of difference, so once again, he's referring to the difference between a republican government and a pure democracy. The greater number of citizens and the extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of a republican than of democratic government. So it's that point that he believes that a republican government can better govern a large population than a pure democracy. And it is this circumstance principally which renders the factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 2)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The other point of difference, so once again, he's referring to the difference between a republican government and a pure democracy. The greater number of citizens and the extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of a republican than of democratic government. So it's that point that he believes that a republican government can better govern a large population than a pure democracy. And it is this circumstance principally which renders the factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. So he's saying because a republican model can govern over more people, it better addresses this issue of factious combinations. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it. The fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 2)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it is this circumstance principally which renders the factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. So he's saying because a republican model can govern over more people, it better addresses this issue of factious combinations. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it. The fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party. And the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests. You make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 2)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party. And the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests. You make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. What Madison is saying here is if you have too small of a society, you're not going to have enough pluralism. You're not going to have enough points of view that it'll be easy because people will be very aligned for a majority to take over and infringe on the rights of a minority. So he is very pro pluralism here."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 2)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. What Madison is saying here is if you have too small of a society, you're not going to have enough pluralism. You're not going to have enough points of view that it'll be easy because people will be very aligned for a majority to take over and infringe on the rights of a minority. So he is very pro pluralism here. He wants to see a large society with many different views because he says if you have a large society with many different views, with many different parties so to speak, well it's less likely that one party can just take over and infringe on the rights of other people. This is the exact opposite of what Brutus One argues for. Brutus One argues that pluralism is a bad thing, that people are just going to be bickering the whole time and decisions aren't going to be made."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 2)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So he is very pro pluralism here. He wants to see a large society with many different views because he says if you have a large society with many different views, with many different parties so to speak, well it's less likely that one party can just take over and infringe on the rights of other people. This is the exact opposite of what Brutus One argues for. Brutus One argues that pluralism is a bad thing, that people are just going to be bickering the whole time and decisions aren't going to be made. Brutus One argues that in a republic, people should be of roughly the same opinion, to have roughly the same interests, while here in Federalist Number 10, Madison is arguing that no, pluralism is a good thing. It is a check on an overbearing faction. It is a check on majority rule."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 2)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Brutus One argues that pluralism is a bad thing, that people are just going to be bickering the whole time and decisions aren't going to be made. Brutus One argues that in a republic, people should be of roughly the same opinion, to have roughly the same interests, while here in Federalist Number 10, Madison is arguing that no, pluralism is a good thing. It is a check on an overbearing faction. It is a check on majority rule. Hence, it clearly appears that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy in controlling the effects of faction is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, is enjoyed by the union over the states composing it. So the big picture of Federalist Number 10 is how do you control faction? And faction is really about how do you control a majority faction that's trying to control everyone else and trying to oppress everyone else?"}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 2)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It is a check on majority rule. Hence, it clearly appears that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy in controlling the effects of faction is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, is enjoyed by the union over the states composing it. So the big picture of Federalist Number 10 is how do you control faction? And faction is really about how do you control a majority faction that's trying to control everyone else and trying to oppress everyone else? Madison makes the argument that one, through a republican system, you're more likely to do this by having a representative government. And then if you have that, you want to make it larger rather than smaller so that you have a pluralist society, so you have many points of view and you don't have one group being able to dominate. And in order to have that larger society, the union is more favorable over having 13 independent sovereign states."}, {"video_title": "Executive orders   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What we're going to discuss in this video is executive orders. And these are directives being issued by the President of the United States that can have the force of law. And I know what you're thinking. Isn't Congress our legislative body, the body that actually creates the laws, and isn't the job of the President to be the head of the executive branch, to execute on those laws? And if you are thinking that, you are correct. But going all the way back to George Washington, presidents have issued executive orders. Some are fairly lightweight."}, {"video_title": "Executive orders   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Isn't Congress our legislative body, the body that actually creates the laws, and isn't the job of the President to be the head of the executive branch, to execute on those laws? And if you are thinking that, you are correct. But going all the way back to George Washington, presidents have issued executive orders. Some are fairly lightweight. They might be a directive for something to be done in a certain way, or a small regulation, or even appointing someone to a job. But sometimes these executive orders can be quite significant. And the constitutional justification for these orders come mainly from two different statements in Article II of the US Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Executive orders   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Some are fairly lightweight. They might be a directive for something to be done in a certain way, or a small regulation, or even appointing someone to a job. But sometimes these executive orders can be quite significant. And the constitutional justification for these orders come mainly from two different statements in Article II of the US Constitution. In Section I, it starts off saying, the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. And at the end of Section III, it says that the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And so the clearest justification for an executive order are times when a regulation is needed, or a directive is needed, in order to faithfully execute the laws."}, {"video_title": "Executive orders   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the constitutional justification for these orders come mainly from two different statements in Article II of the US Constitution. In Section I, it starts off saying, the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. And at the end of Section III, it says that the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And so the clearest justification for an executive order are times when a regulation is needed, or a directive is needed, in order to faithfully execute the laws. But as we will see, presidents throughout history have really pushed the boundary here, and have definitely gone into territory that you might expect to be the area of Congress. Now in terms of appreciating how frequent these executive orders are, here is a chart that gives the average executive orders per year for the last few presidents. And you can see at the low end, you have President Obama and President George W. Bush averaging about 35 or 36 executive orders per year."}, {"video_title": "Executive orders   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the clearest justification for an executive order are times when a regulation is needed, or a directive is needed, in order to faithfully execute the laws. But as we will see, presidents throughout history have really pushed the boundary here, and have definitely gone into territory that you might expect to be the area of Congress. Now in terms of appreciating how frequent these executive orders are, here is a chart that gives the average executive orders per year for the last few presidents. And you can see at the low end, you have President Obama and President George W. Bush averaging about 35 or 36 executive orders per year. And then all the way at the high end, you get to Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Now if you were to go even further back in history, presidents like Franklin Roosevelt had far more executive orders than even this. And just to appreciate some of the most significant executive orders ever made, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which was delivered during the Civil War, it freed nearly three million slaves in the Confederate States."}, {"video_title": "Executive orders   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you can see at the low end, you have President Obama and President George W. Bush averaging about 35 or 36 executive orders per year. And then all the way at the high end, you get to Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Now if you were to go even further back in history, presidents like Franklin Roosevelt had far more executive orders than even this. And just to appreciate some of the most significant executive orders ever made, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which was delivered during the Civil War, it freed nearly three million slaves in the Confederate States. In 1942, a few months after Japan's bombardment of Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt issues Executive Order 9066, which called for the internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry. Historians have really frowned on this executive order because it was a blatant disregard for the rights of these Americans. But at the time, Franklin Roosevelt justified it as a national security issue."}, {"video_title": "Executive orders   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And just to appreciate some of the most significant executive orders ever made, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which was delivered during the Civil War, it freed nearly three million slaves in the Confederate States. In 1942, a few months after Japan's bombardment of Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt issues Executive Order 9066, which called for the internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry. Historians have really frowned on this executive order because it was a blatant disregard for the rights of these Americans. But at the time, Franklin Roosevelt justified it as a national security issue. And then in 1952, during the Korean War, steel workers are threatening to go on strike. And so President Truman issues Executive Order 10340 that puts steel mills under the control of the Commerce Secretary. And the justification here was that they were in the middle of the war and that steel is an essential material for conducting the war."}, {"video_title": "Executive orders   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But at the time, Franklin Roosevelt justified it as a national security issue. And then in 1952, during the Korean War, steel workers are threatening to go on strike. And so President Truman issues Executive Order 10340 that puts steel mills under the control of the Commerce Secretary. And the justification here was that they were in the middle of the war and that steel is an essential material for conducting the war. Now what's really interesting about this executive order is that the owners of the steel mills did not like this and they take the government to federal court. It eventually gets to the US Supreme Court. It's known as the case Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company versus Sawyer, where Sawyer was the Commerce Secretary."}, {"video_title": "Executive orders   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the justification here was that they were in the middle of the war and that steel is an essential material for conducting the war. Now what's really interesting about this executive order is that the owners of the steel mills did not like this and they take the government to federal court. It eventually gets to the US Supreme Court. It's known as the case Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company versus Sawyer, where Sawyer was the Commerce Secretary. And the Supreme Court rules against President Truman, saying that this executive order went beyond the bounds of even the president's implied powers. So the big picture here is that executive orders are a method by which presidents over time have been able to expand their power beyond what is explicitly listed in Article II of the Constitution. Now like in all things, there is a check on that power."}, {"video_title": "Executive orders   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's known as the case Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company versus Sawyer, where Sawyer was the Commerce Secretary. And the Supreme Court rules against President Truman, saying that this executive order went beyond the bounds of even the president's implied powers. So the big picture here is that executive orders are a method by which presidents over time have been able to expand their power beyond what is explicitly listed in Article II of the Constitution. Now like in all things, there is a check on that power. And much of that comes from the Supreme Court's ability to rule executive orders unconstitutional. But there still aren't clear boundaries on what makes an executive order constitutional or not. And they are likely to continue to be an area of debate when it comes to powers of the president."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's there that they officially choose their candidates that will run against each other in the general election. And a national convention for one of the parties will look something like this. This is the Democratic national convention in 2008. You have all the delegates over here, and everyone's all excited, and they start to cheerlead for their party and for their candidate. The Republican national convention looks very similar. And although there's a lot of energy here, there actually isn't a lot of suspense. Going into the convention, we usually know already who the candidates for each of the parties are going to be."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have all the delegates over here, and everyone's all excited, and they start to cheerlead for their party and for their candidate. The Republican national convention looks very similar. And although there's a lot of energy here, there actually isn't a lot of suspense. Going into the convention, we usually know already who the candidates for each of the parties are going to be. And that's because each of the states have their own selection process for picking a candidate. And as those selection processes, as we get the results from, we know how many delegates they're going to send to the convention, and who they are going to, or whom they are going to vote for. But there's two ways that they can select those candidates, or those delegates, for the national convention."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Going into the convention, we usually know already who the candidates for each of the parties are going to be. And that's because each of the states have their own selection process for picking a candidate. And as those selection processes, as we get the results from, we know how many delegates they're going to send to the convention, and who they are going to, or whom they are going to vote for. But there's two ways that they can select those candidates, or those delegates, for the national convention. They could either run a caucus, or they could run a primary. And I'll start with primary, because that's a little bit more intuitive. It's kind of like just an election that is based on party, for whom do you want to be your nominee coming out of the national convention."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But there's two ways that they can select those candidates, or those delegates, for the national convention. They could either run a caucus, or they could run a primary. And I'll start with primary, because that's a little bit more intuitive. It's kind of like just an election that is based on party, for whom do you want to be your nominee coming out of the national convention. So for any given state, they'll have both a Democratic primary and a Republican primary. And on the Democratic primary, let's say candidate A gets 40% of the vote on that election, candidate B gets 30% of the vote, and let's say candidate C gets another 30% of the vote. What will happen is, is that state's delegates on the Democratic side, so let's say that that state, just for convenience, let's say that they have 10 delegates."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's kind of like just an election that is based on party, for whom do you want to be your nominee coming out of the national convention. So for any given state, they'll have both a Democratic primary and a Republican primary. And on the Democratic primary, let's say candidate A gets 40% of the vote on that election, candidate B gets 30% of the vote, and let's say candidate C gets another 30% of the vote. What will happen is, is that state's delegates on the Democratic side, so let's say that that state, just for convenience, let's say that they have 10 delegates. On the Democratic side, that means that these delegates will go on to the national convention, and represent the different candidates proportionally. So out of these 10 delegates, 40%, or 4, will represent candidate A, 3 will represent candidate B, and 3 will represent candidate C when they go to the national convention. On the Republican side, it's a little bit more nuanced."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What will happen is, is that state's delegates on the Democratic side, so let's say that that state, just for convenience, let's say that they have 10 delegates. On the Democratic side, that means that these delegates will go on to the national convention, and represent the different candidates proportionally. So out of these 10 delegates, 40%, or 4, will represent candidate A, 3 will represent candidate B, and 3 will represent candidate C when they go to the national convention. On the Republican side, it's a little bit more nuanced. You could have similar results. A gets 40%, B gets 30%, and C gets... Let me do different letters to show you these aren't the same candidates. So let me do candidates D, E, and F. So you could have candidate D, candidate E, candidate F, and let's say... Let me just do the percentages slightly different for fun."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "On the Republican side, it's a little bit more nuanced. You could have similar results. A gets 40%, B gets 30%, and C gets... Let me do different letters to show you these aren't the same candidates. So let me do candidates D, E, and F. So you could have candidate D, candidate E, candidate F, and let's say... Let me just do the percentages slightly different for fun. So let's say you have 45% over here, let's say you have 25% over here, and let's say you have candidate F with 30% over here. On the Republican side, it depends from state to state. Some states will do it similar to the Democrats, where the delegates represent the candidates in proportion to the votes they have, while some other states have it winner-take-all."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let me do candidates D, E, and F. So you could have candidate D, candidate E, candidate F, and let's say... Let me just do the percentages slightly different for fun. So let's say you have 45% over here, let's say you have 25% over here, and let's say you have candidate F with 30% over here. On the Republican side, it depends from state to state. Some states will do it similar to the Democrats, where the delegates represent the candidates in proportion to the votes they have, while some other states have it winner-take-all. And so, for example, in a winner-take-all state, candidate D would get all 10 delegates. And the reason why states do that is it's a stronger incentive for a candidate to show up to that state if they feel like they're in the running, because if they throw enough money and marketing in that state, that's a big deal to take all of the votes. On the other hand, if you're a smaller candidate and you don't think you can take it all, it might be a disincentive for you to actually even show up at that state, and you might want to focus on the states where you can actually get some delegates."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Some states will do it similar to the Democrats, where the delegates represent the candidates in proportion to the votes they have, while some other states have it winner-take-all. And so, for example, in a winner-take-all state, candidate D would get all 10 delegates. And the reason why states do that is it's a stronger incentive for a candidate to show up to that state if they feel like they're in the running, because if they throw enough money and marketing in that state, that's a big deal to take all of the votes. On the other hand, if you're a smaller candidate and you don't think you can take it all, it might be a disincentive for you to actually even show up at that state, and you might want to focus on the states where you can actually get some delegates. So that's all a primary is. It's really a... kind of you could view it as an election that's held separately on the Democratic side, separately on the Republican side, and those are used by the states' parties to decide which delegates go to the national party and whom those delegates are going to vote for. A caucus, the point is the same thing, to figure out who are your delegates that are going to go to the national convention and whom are they going to vote for, but the process is a little bit different."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "On the other hand, if you're a smaller candidate and you don't think you can take it all, it might be a disincentive for you to actually even show up at that state, and you might want to focus on the states where you can actually get some delegates. So that's all a primary is. It's really a... kind of you could view it as an election that's held separately on the Democratic side, separately on the Republican side, and those are used by the states' parties to decide which delegates go to the national party and whom those delegates are going to vote for. A caucus, the point is the same thing, to figure out who are your delegates that are going to go to the national convention and whom are they going to vote for, but the process is a little bit different. In a caucus, you essentially have people get together in these events, these caucuses, in different precincts. And the most famous of these are the Iowa caucuses. So in small precincts, you'll have groups of 50 to 100 people get together, and they have... and the different parties have different ways of going about it, but they have a way... they have processes in place where people try to kind of market for different candidates, they campaign for different candidates, and sometimes they'll have a cutoff that if one of the candidates at one of the precincts don't get at least 15% of the vote, then the people who supported that candidate will have to give their support to another candidate, so they make sure that all of the delegates represent at least a certain threshold of voters."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A caucus, the point is the same thing, to figure out who are your delegates that are going to go to the national convention and whom are they going to vote for, but the process is a little bit different. In a caucus, you essentially have people get together in these events, these caucuses, in different precincts. And the most famous of these are the Iowa caucuses. So in small precincts, you'll have groups of 50 to 100 people get together, and they have... and the different parties have different ways of going about it, but they have a way... they have processes in place where people try to kind of market for different candidates, they campaign for different candidates, and sometimes they'll have a cutoff that if one of the candidates at one of the precincts don't get at least 15% of the vote, then the people who supported that candidate will have to give their support to another candidate, so they make sure that all of the delegates represent at least a certain threshold of voters. But there's different processes in place. But the bottom line is, once they... at each of these precincts, they'll select delegates, and then those delegates will then go on to the county conventions, and then those delegates at the county conventions, where these are representing more people, will then pick delegates to the district conventions, and then at the district conventions, they'll pick candidates onto the state conventions, and at the state conventions, they'll pick the final candidates that go on to the national convention. Now, the two most famous caucuses or primaries are the Iowa caucus, which takes place in Iowa, and you have the New Hampshire primary, which of course takes place in New Hampshire."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in small precincts, you'll have groups of 50 to 100 people get together, and they have... and the different parties have different ways of going about it, but they have a way... they have processes in place where people try to kind of market for different candidates, they campaign for different candidates, and sometimes they'll have a cutoff that if one of the candidates at one of the precincts don't get at least 15% of the vote, then the people who supported that candidate will have to give their support to another candidate, so they make sure that all of the delegates represent at least a certain threshold of voters. But there's different processes in place. But the bottom line is, once they... at each of these precincts, they'll select delegates, and then those delegates will then go on to the county conventions, and then those delegates at the county conventions, where these are representing more people, will then pick delegates to the district conventions, and then at the district conventions, they'll pick candidates onto the state conventions, and at the state conventions, they'll pick the final candidates that go on to the national convention. Now, the two most famous caucuses or primaries are the Iowa caucus, which takes place in Iowa, and you have the New Hampshire primary, which of course takes place in New Hampshire. And they're important not because they pick so many delegates that those delegates are going to tip the balance necessarily. These are both small states. They don't have that many delegates compared to California or Texas or Florida."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, the two most famous caucuses or primaries are the Iowa caucus, which takes place in Iowa, and you have the New Hampshire primary, which of course takes place in New Hampshire. And they're important not because they pick so many delegates that those delegates are going to tip the balance necessarily. These are both small states. They don't have that many delegates compared to California or Texas or Florida. But what's important about both of them is that they happen very, very, very early on in the primary season. And because they happen early on in the primary season, the candidates that come off with the lead here, it's easier for them to raise money, because other people say, oh, I want to give my money to a winner. I don't want to give money to a candidate who's going to just blow it and lose the money and lose the election regardless."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They don't have that many delegates compared to California or Texas or Florida. But what's important about both of them is that they happen very, very, very early on in the primary season. And because they happen early on in the primary season, the candidates that come off with the lead here, it's easier for them to raise money, because other people say, oh, I want to give my money to a winner. I don't want to give money to a candidate who's going to just blow it and lose the money and lose the election regardless. So it gives you that. It also is a big signal for who's a frontrunner, because there tends to be dynamics for whoever wins or comes in maybe second place in the Iowa caucus or New Hampshire primary, that those are the people that everyone should pay attention to. They get more fundraising."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I don't want to give money to a candidate who's going to just blow it and lose the money and lose the election regardless. So it gives you that. It also is a big signal for who's a frontrunner, because there tends to be dynamics for whoever wins or comes in maybe second place in the Iowa caucus or New Hampshire primary, that those are the people that everyone should pay attention to. They get more fundraising. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. More people all of a sudden take a more serious look at them. Now, the Iowa caucus, just to be clear, the primaries all happen on one day."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They get more fundraising. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. More people all of a sudden take a more serious look at them. Now, the Iowa caucus, just to be clear, the primaries all happen on one day. One, you have the polling results when people exit the polls, and then you also get the final results pretty quickly. This caucus process actually takes place over many, many months, five months in the case of the Iowa caucus. And the results, the thing that the press focuses on, is not this final result of who are the actual delegates that go to the national convention."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, the Iowa caucus, just to be clear, the primaries all happen on one day. One, you have the polling results when people exit the polls, and then you also get the final results pretty quickly. This caucus process actually takes place over many, many months, five months in the case of the Iowa caucus. And the results, the thing that the press focuses on, is not this final result of who are the actual delegates that go to the national convention. The thing that the press focuses on are the precinct, the precinct conventions where people get together. Because coming out of those precinct conventions, the state parties get the information on how many candidates each delegate won going into now the county conventions. And this is the indicator that the press and the media and everyone else likes to use to see who's a frontrunner in that specific party's primary."}, {"video_title": "Primaries and caucuses   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the results, the thing that the press focuses on, is not this final result of who are the actual delegates that go to the national convention. The thing that the press focuses on are the precinct, the precinct conventions where people get together. Because coming out of those precinct conventions, the state parties get the information on how many candidates each delegate won going into now the county conventions. And this is the indicator that the press and the media and everyone else likes to use to see who's a frontrunner in that specific party's primary. The reason why the Iowa caucus in particular gets so much importance is because it is the first caucus. These results come out before anything else. The New Hampshire primary, this is the first time that you have direct voting for candidates."}, {"video_title": "Checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In other videos, we have talked about how the other branches of government can limit Supreme Court powers. We're going to continue that conversation in this video by discussing how the amendment process can also limit or overrule a Supreme Court decision. So let's go to 1875. Just for some context, the 14th Amendment to the United States had already been ratified. And in particular, you have the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment that says no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Well, you could imagine a lot of women at the time who were citizens of the United States said that, look, voting is a privilege of being a citizen, but I am not allowed to vote. And so you have Virginia Minor, who was a citizen in Missouri, decides to register to vote."}, {"video_title": "Checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Just for some context, the 14th Amendment to the United States had already been ratified. And in particular, you have the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment that says no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Well, you could imagine a lot of women at the time who were citizens of the United States said that, look, voting is a privilege of being a citizen, but I am not allowed to vote. And so you have Virginia Minor, who was a citizen in Missouri, decides to register to vote. She is denied and eventually takes the registrar to court. It eventually gets appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court in Minor versus Hapersett, where Hapersett is the registrar in Missouri. And the Supreme Court in this case rules that voting is not a privilege of citizenship for women."}, {"video_title": "Checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so you have Virginia Minor, who was a citizen in Missouri, decides to register to vote. She is denied and eventually takes the registrar to court. It eventually gets appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court in Minor versus Hapersett, where Hapersett is the registrar in Missouri. And the Supreme Court in this case rules that voting is not a privilege of citizenship for women. And it seems absurd to us right now that voting seems to be one of the main privileges of being a citizen, but that's the way the Supreme Court ruled in 1875. Now, the folks who were fighting for a women's right to vote weren't just women, they were also men, eventually started to have victories in the early 1900s. At various states, especially states in the West, started to allow women to vote."}, {"video_title": "Checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the Supreme Court in this case rules that voting is not a privilege of citizenship for women. And it seems absurd to us right now that voting seems to be one of the main privileges of being a citizen, but that's the way the Supreme Court ruled in 1875. Now, the folks who were fighting for a women's right to vote weren't just women, they were also men, eventually started to have victories in the early 1900s. At various states, especially states in the West, started to allow women to vote. But as we go into the teens of the 1900s, the movement gets enough steam to get Congress and the state legislators to propose and ratify the 19th Amendment, which says, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. So what we have here is the legislative branch, both the US Congress and the state legislatures, because it needs to be voted for by 2 3rds of both houses of Congress, and then ratified by 3 4ths of the states, they essentially overruled the Minor versus Haperset decision."}, {"video_title": "Checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "At various states, especially states in the West, started to allow women to vote. But as we go into the teens of the 1900s, the movement gets enough steam to get Congress and the state legislators to propose and ratify the 19th Amendment, which says, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. So what we have here is the legislative branch, both the US Congress and the state legislatures, because it needs to be voted for by 2 3rds of both houses of Congress, and then ratified by 3 4ths of the states, they essentially overruled the Minor versus Haperset decision. They said, all right, Supreme Court, you might see some ambiguity in the 14th Amendment, although today it's hard to say that voting isn't a privilege of citizenship, but to make it very clear, they proposed and ratified the 19th Amendment. So not only is this an interesting time in American history, not that long ago, less than 100 years before this video that I'm making was made, women did not have the full right to vote in most of the United States. We eventually get the 19th Amendment, but above and beyond that, this is an example of how other branches of government can exercise some checks on the United States Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And states have a certain number of representatives depending on their population. We're going to go into a little bit more depth in this video is exactly how laws get passed. In particular, how do bills get passed by one or both of these houses. And if you're looking at the US Capitol building from the lawn, you can assume that the Washington Monument is behind you in this picture right over here. The Senate chamber is on the left side just like that, and the House of Representatives is on the right side. But what does a bill actually look like? So right over here is the cover of a House bill."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if you're looking at the US Capitol building from the lawn, you can assume that the Washington Monument is behind you in this picture right over here. The Senate chamber is on the left side just like that, and the House of Representatives is on the right side. But what does a bill actually look like? So right over here is the cover of a House bill. And notice some interesting things. The House bills start with H.R., House of Representatives I. And so this is the first bill being introduced in this first session of the 108th Congress."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So right over here is the cover of a House bill. And notice some interesting things. The House bills start with H.R., House of Representatives I. And so this is the first bill being introduced in this first session of the 108th Congress. And it says, and it's a little hard to read, especially if you're looking at this on a mobile phone, but it says, to amend Title 18 of the Social Security Act to provide for voluntary program for prescription drug coverage under the Medicare program to modernize the Medicare program and for other purposes. But that's just a very quick summary. And then it talks about who are the representatives that are introducing the bill."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so this is the first bill being introduced in this first session of the 108th Congress. And it says, and it's a little hard to read, especially if you're looking at this on a mobile phone, but it says, to amend Title 18 of the Social Security Act to provide for voluntary program for prescription drug coverage under the Medicare program to modernize the Medicare program and for other purposes. But that's just a very quick summary. And then it talks about who are the representatives that are introducing the bill. So it's Mr. Hastert, and then it's in parentheses, it says for himself, and then it says Mr. DeLay, Mr. Blunt, and it keeps going on and on and on. And this was introduced June 25th, 2003. And over here at the bottom of where it talks about who is introducing this bill, it says, which was referred jointly to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then it talks about who are the representatives that are introducing the bill. So it's Mr. Hastert, and then it's in parentheses, it says for himself, and then it says Mr. DeLay, Mr. Blunt, and it keeps going on and on and on. And this was introduced June 25th, 2003. And over here at the bottom of where it talks about who is introducing this bill, it says, which was referred jointly to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. So this is the first clue of how bills get started. In theory, anyone could write a bill. In practice, they are written by a member of Congress's aides or aides of a committee, and we're gonna talk more about committees, but they need to be formally introduced by members of Congress."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And over here at the bottom of where it talks about who is introducing this bill, it says, which was referred jointly to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. So this is the first clue of how bills get started. In theory, anyone could write a bill. In practice, they are written by a member of Congress's aides or aides of a committee, and we're gonna talk more about committees, but they need to be formally introduced by members of Congress. And you could see here, Mr. Hastert, Congressman Hastert is listed first. But it doesn't go straight to a vote by the full House of Representatives. It will be introduced to an appropriate committee, which is a subset of the House of Representatives."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In practice, they are written by a member of Congress's aides or aides of a committee, and we're gonna talk more about committees, but they need to be formally introduced by members of Congress. And you could see here, Mr. Hastert, Congressman Hastert is listed first. But it doesn't go straight to a vote by the full House of Representatives. It will be introduced to an appropriate committee, which is a subset of the House of Representatives. In this case, it's going to go to both the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Ways and Means Committee. We can similarly look at a Senate bill, and it has some similarities. And the key thing to appreciate is that a bill could be introduced into the House initially or into the Senate initially, and sometimes you have parallel bills that are essentially trying to do the same thing, going through both chambers at the same time."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It will be introduced to an appropriate committee, which is a subset of the House of Representatives. In this case, it's going to go to both the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Ways and Means Committee. We can similarly look at a Senate bill, and it has some similarities. And the key thing to appreciate is that a bill could be introduced into the House initially or into the Senate initially, and sometimes you have parallel bills that are essentially trying to do the same thing, going through both chambers at the same time. But right over here, this is a Senate bill, Senate Bill 1,833. This is in the 115th Congress. To modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain land and for other purposes."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the key thing to appreciate is that a bill could be introduced into the House initially or into the Senate initially, and sometimes you have parallel bills that are essentially trying to do the same thing, going through both chambers at the same time. But right over here, this is a Senate bill, Senate Bill 1,833. This is in the 115th Congress. To modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain land and for other purposes. And then this is September 19th, 2017. It says, Mr. Udall, for himself, and then it lists other senators, introduced the following bill, which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and then you start seeing the text of the bill. So once again, whether it initially gets introduced into the Senate or into the House, the first place where it goes is to the appropriate committee."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain land and for other purposes. And then this is September 19th, 2017. It says, Mr. Udall, for himself, and then it lists other senators, introduced the following bill, which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and then you start seeing the text of the bill. So once again, whether it initially gets introduced into the Senate or into the House, the first place where it goes is to the appropriate committee. And in general, it will only get voted on by the entire Senate or the entire House if it is approved by a committee, if a majority of the committee actually votes for it. Now what are these committees? So in the House of Representatives, you currently have over 20 committees at the time that I'm making this video."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So once again, whether it initially gets introduced into the Senate or into the House, the first place where it goes is to the appropriate committee. And in general, it will only get voted on by the entire Senate or the entire House if it is approved by a committee, if a majority of the committee actually votes for it. Now what are these committees? So in the House of Representatives, you currently have over 20 committees at the time that I'm making this video. Right now you have 20 standing committees, which means they are continuously in operation, and one select committee, which means it might be created for a special purpose, although some of these select committees tend to last for a while. Now what I'm going to list here are some of the most powerful committees in the House of Representatives. You have the House Ways and Means Committee."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in the House of Representatives, you currently have over 20 committees at the time that I'm making this video. Right now you have 20 standing committees, which means they are continuously in operation, and one select committee, which means it might be created for a special purpose, although some of these select committees tend to last for a while. Now what I'm going to list here are some of the most powerful committees in the House of Representatives. You have the House Ways and Means Committee. Now why is this important? What is a Ways and Means? This is the committee that first considers legislation around taxation."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have the House Ways and Means Committee. Now why is this important? What is a Ways and Means? This is the committee that first considers legislation around taxation. So it's the ways and means by which the government can actually fund itself. And so you can imagine this is very, very powerful. Who gets taxed?"}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is the committee that first considers legislation around taxation. So it's the ways and means by which the government can actually fund itself. And so you can imagine this is very, very powerful. Who gets taxed? By how much? How much revenue is actually coming in? What will that do to the economy?"}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Who gets taxed? By how much? How much revenue is actually coming in? What will that do to the economy? And this is a committee that's very specific to the House of Representatives. In general, bills could be introduced to the Senate or the House or both. But if it's something regarding taxation that has to originate in the House of Representatives, and it will go through the House Ways and Means Committee."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What will that do to the economy? And this is a committee that's very specific to the House of Representatives. In general, bills could be introduced to the Senate or the House or both. But if it's something regarding taxation that has to originate in the House of Representatives, and it will go through the House Ways and Means Committee. Another very powerful committee is the Budget Committee. Through tax policy, the House Ways and Means Committee influences how the government gets its revenue, but the Budget Committee decides what is actually the budget of the government. The president can make a proposed budget, but it's the Budget Committee that actually decides on what budget Congress will actually vote on in the House."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But if it's something regarding taxation that has to originate in the House of Representatives, and it will go through the House Ways and Means Committee. Another very powerful committee is the Budget Committee. Through tax policy, the House Ways and Means Committee influences how the government gets its revenue, but the Budget Committee decides what is actually the budget of the government. The president can make a proposed budget, but it's the Budget Committee that actually decides on what budget Congress will actually vote on in the House. Now once you have a budget, you have to think about how you're going to spend that money and that's what the Appropriations Committee's focused on. Which programs get how much funding? So once again, this is a very powerful committee to be on."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The president can make a proposed budget, but it's the Budget Committee that actually decides on what budget Congress will actually vote on in the House. Now once you have a budget, you have to think about how you're going to spend that money and that's what the Appropriations Committee's focused on. Which programs get how much funding? So once again, this is a very powerful committee to be on. But perhaps the most powerful committee of all is the Rules Committee. The reason why this is so powerful is that in the House of Representatives, even if a bill is introduced into a committee, and even if that committee decides to vote on that bill, and let's say they pass it by a simple majority, it doesn't go straight to the floor of the House of Representatives to a vote. The Rules Committee is actually, you could view them as the traffic cop for the House of Representatives."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So once again, this is a very powerful committee to be on. But perhaps the most powerful committee of all is the Rules Committee. The reason why this is so powerful is that in the House of Representatives, even if a bill is introduced into a committee, and even if that committee decides to vote on that bill, and let's say they pass it by a simple majority, it doesn't go straight to the floor of the House of Representatives to a vote. The Rules Committee is actually, you could view them as the traffic cop for the House of Representatives. For the most part, they decide which bills go to the floor of the House, what are the rules by which they're voted on, are people allowed to make amendments, which are add-ons to that bill, are people even allowed to debate it? They can even decide whether it's going to be voted on by the House of Representatives acting as the House of Representatives, or whether it's going to be voted on as the committee of the whole, so to speak, which is the entire House of Representatives. The difference between voting for something as the House of Representatives or the committee of the whole, in either case, it would happen in the same room, is that there's different procedures on how to do it."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Rules Committee is actually, you could view them as the traffic cop for the House of Representatives. For the most part, they decide which bills go to the floor of the House, what are the rules by which they're voted on, are people allowed to make amendments, which are add-ons to that bill, are people even allowed to debate it? They can even decide whether it's going to be voted on by the House of Representatives acting as the House of Representatives, or whether it's going to be voted on as the committee of the whole, so to speak, which is the entire House of Representatives. The difference between voting for something as the House of Representatives or the committee of the whole, in either case, it would happen in the same room, is that there's different procedures on how to do it. And so you can imagine there's a lot of strategy, depending on which party is in charge, on what initially even gets through a committee. And then once it gets through a committee, what's the procedure by which it is voted on, or whether it gets voted on at all? Does it have a very public debate, or is there a very little debate?"}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The difference between voting for something as the House of Representatives or the committee of the whole, in either case, it would happen in the same room, is that there's different procedures on how to do it. And so you can imagine there's a lot of strategy, depending on which party is in charge, on what initially even gets through a committee. And then once it gets through a committee, what's the procedure by which it is voted on, or whether it gets voted on at all? Does it have a very public debate, or is there a very little debate? Now, if something does pass the House, then that same bill, once it passes the House, would have to be voted on by the Senate. Now, similarly, in the Senate, when a bill is introduced, it goes to committee. And in the Senate, currently, there's 16 standing committees, and over 20 total committees at the time of this video."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Does it have a very public debate, or is there a very little debate? Now, if something does pass the House, then that same bill, once it passes the House, would have to be voted on by the Senate. Now, similarly, in the Senate, when a bill is introduced, it goes to committee. And in the Senate, currently, there's 16 standing committees, and over 20 total committees at the time of this video. And just to get a sense of some of the more powerful committees on the Senate, you have things like the Appropriations Committee, which is the sister committee of the House Appropriations Committee that we talked about before. Once again, they will try to think about, well, how could that money be spent? You have the Foreign Relations Committee."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And in the Senate, currently, there's 16 standing committees, and over 20 total committees at the time of this video. And just to get a sense of some of the more powerful committees on the Senate, you have things like the Appropriations Committee, which is the sister committee of the House Appropriations Committee that we talked about before. Once again, they will try to think about, well, how could that money be spent? You have the Foreign Relations Committee. One key distinction between the Senate and the House, there's a lot of areas where they both might legislate on, or introduce legislation on. But in general, tax bills can only originate in the House, while the Senate is closer to things like foreign relations. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all treaties would go through them."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have the Foreign Relations Committee. One key distinction between the Senate and the House, there's a lot of areas where they both might legislate on, or introduce legislation on. But in general, tax bills can only originate in the House, while the Senate is closer to things like foreign relations. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all treaties would go through them. The Senate Armed Services Committee, it has legislative authority over the military. Now, once something gets through any of these committees, then it would go through the Senate floor. And even there, you start to appreciate a difference between the House and the Senate."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all treaties would go through them. The Senate Armed Services Committee, it has legislative authority over the military. Now, once something gets through any of these committees, then it would go through the Senate floor. And even there, you start to appreciate a difference between the House and the Senate. In the Senate, not only do you have a fewer number of senators, they tend to be more generalists, and it's easier for something to get to the Senate floor. It's a little bit more collegial. In the House, if the majority party is strongly controlling the Rules Committee, they can very strongly control not just what gets to the floor, but what is debated, how is debated, if it's debated, and what has amendments put on it."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And even there, you start to appreciate a difference between the House and the Senate. In the Senate, not only do you have a fewer number of senators, they tend to be more generalists, and it's easier for something to get to the Senate floor. It's a little bit more collegial. In the House, if the majority party is strongly controlling the Rules Committee, they can very strongly control not just what gets to the floor, but what is debated, how is debated, if it's debated, and what has amendments put on it. And also, the members who serve on these committees, it's a little bit more specialized. Now, in either case, once a bill gets through either House, it has to be voted on by the other House. So if a bill gets approved by the Senate, then it will go to the House."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the House, if the majority party is strongly controlling the Rules Committee, they can very strongly control not just what gets to the floor, but what is debated, how is debated, if it's debated, and what has amendments put on it. And also, the members who serve on these committees, it's a little bit more specialized. Now, in either case, once a bill gets through either House, it has to be voted on by the other House. So if a bill gets approved by the Senate, then it will go to the House. And if that same bill is approved by the House with a simple majority, then it will go to the President. Now, the President might sign the bill, in which case it would become law, or the President could veto that bill. If the President vetoes the bill, it goes back to both of these Houses."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if a bill gets approved by the Senate, then it will go to the House. And if that same bill is approved by the House with a simple majority, then it will go to the President. Now, the President might sign the bill, in which case it would become law, or the President could veto that bill. If the President vetoes the bill, it goes back to both of these Houses. And to override the veto, each of these Houses, they both have to vote with a 2 3rds majority, and that happens very seldom. Now, you also have a scenario where sometimes very similar bills are going through both Houses at the same time. So there's a situation where a similar bill has gone through both Houses at the same time."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If the President vetoes the bill, it goes back to both of these Houses. And to override the veto, each of these Houses, they both have to vote with a 2 3rds majority, and that happens very seldom. Now, you also have a scenario where sometimes very similar bills are going through both Houses at the same time. So there's a situation where a similar bill has gone through both Houses at the same time. What it goes to is something called a conference committee. And a conference committee is a group of both Senators and Representatives who will get together, and they'll try to reconcile the differences between those two bills. And once they get one bill that is, that reconciles the differences between those two, then it'll go back for a vote to both Houses."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So there's a situation where a similar bill has gone through both Houses at the same time. What it goes to is something called a conference committee. And a conference committee is a group of both Senators and Representatives who will get together, and they'll try to reconcile the differences between those two bills. And once they get one bill that is, that reconciles the differences between those two, then it'll go back for a vote to both Houses. And if they pass both Houses, then once again it will go to the President who could decide to sign it or veto it. And once again, if it gets vetoed, that veto could get overridden. So the big picture here is, we've talked about that policymaking process in previous videos, where at first you wanna identify an issue, and then you wanna do policy formulation."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And once they get one bill that is, that reconciles the differences between those two, then it'll go back for a vote to both Houses. And if they pass both Houses, then once again it will go to the President who could decide to sign it or veto it. And once again, if it gets vetoed, that veto could get overridden. So the big picture here is, we've talked about that policymaking process in previous videos, where at first you wanna identify an issue, and then you wanna do policy formulation. Well, a lot of that is going on in the U.S. Congress. You have congressional aides who are identifying problems, maybe different constituents, maybe lobbyists are saying, hey, can you fix this, or can you change the tax code in some way? Then they formulate a policy, which is essentially these bills."}, {"video_title": "How a bill becomes a law   US government and civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the big picture here is, we've talked about that policymaking process in previous videos, where at first you wanna identify an issue, and then you wanna do policy formulation. Well, a lot of that is going on in the U.S. Congress. You have congressional aides who are identifying problems, maybe different constituents, maybe lobbyists are saying, hey, can you fix this, or can you change the tax code in some way? Then they formulate a policy, which is essentially these bills. These bills are essentially a policy formulation. And then those policies have to be adopted. To be adopted, it has to be approved by both Houses of Congress, and then signed by the President, or if it's vetoed by the President, that veto has to be overridden by both Houses of Congress."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's been a lot of talk lately about the fiscal cliff, which sounds very dramatic. And what I wanted to do in this video is at least lay out the numbers so that we're all on the same page. And then in the next few videos, think about the implications or how the negotiations between the president and Congress might actually work out. So the first thing to frame this conversation is just where the budget is right now. And so let me draw a little graph. So let me make this axis right over here represent our budget. And I wanna make it as big as possible so that we can get a little bit of granular detail on how much the budget might move based on how the negotiations work out."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the first thing to frame this conversation is just where the budget is right now. And so let me draw a little graph. So let me make this axis right over here represent our budget. And I wanna make it as big as possible so that we can get a little bit of granular detail on how much the budget might move based on how the negotiations work out. So let's say that this line is roughly $4 trillion long. So that's 4 trillion, then the halfway would be about 2 trillion, and then in between two and four, you got 3 trillion, and then 1 trillion would be right over here, 1 trillion. And then I'm gonna do some bar charts to show the different scenarios."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I wanna make it as big as possible so that we can get a little bit of granular detail on how much the budget might move based on how the negotiations work out. So let's say that this line is roughly $4 trillion long. So that's 4 trillion, then the halfway would be about 2 trillion, and then in between two and four, you got 3 trillion, and then 1 trillion would be right over here, 1 trillion. And then I'm gonna do some bar charts to show the different scenarios. And as I do this, keep in mind the size of the US economy. The US economy is approximately $15.5 trillion. So that is roughly our GDP, depends on which year you're measuring, but that gives us at least a frame of reference for what chunk of GDP we are talking about when we talk about the federal budget."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then I'm gonna do some bar charts to show the different scenarios. And as I do this, keep in mind the size of the US economy. The US economy is approximately $15.5 trillion. So that is roughly our GDP, depends on which year you're measuring, but that gives us at least a frame of reference for what chunk of GDP we are talking about when we talk about the federal budget. So let's start with the 2012. Let's start with the 2012 budget. So in 2012, the US government is spending $3.6 trillion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that is roughly our GDP, depends on which year you're measuring, but that gives us at least a frame of reference for what chunk of GDP we are talking about when we talk about the federal budget. So let's start with the 2012. Let's start with the 2012 budget. So in 2012, the US government is spending $3.6 trillion. So let me make my graph a little bit more granular. So this would be 3.5. So 3.6 is gonna be right around here."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in 2012, the US government is spending $3.6 trillion. So let me make my graph a little bit more granular. So this would be 3.5. So 3.6 is gonna be right around here. So let me draw that. And I'll do it in this purple color for the expenditures. So this is how much the federal government spent, or I guess is spending, in 2012."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So 3.6 is gonna be right around here. So let me draw that. And I'll do it in this purple color for the expenditures. So this is how much the federal government spent, or I guess is spending, in 2012. So just like that. All right, there we go. So that's expenditures."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is how much the federal government spent, or I guess is spending, in 2012. So just like that. All right, there we go. So that's expenditures. Now, you are probably aware that we don't have all of the revenue. We didn't bring in 3.6 trillion in taxes. So this right over here is 3.6 trillion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that's expenditures. Now, you are probably aware that we don't have all of the revenue. We didn't bring in 3.6 trillion in taxes. So this right over here is 3.6 trillion. Our revenue that we get through tax revenue and other things is somewhat less. It, in 2012, was on the order of 2.5 trillion. So I'll draw that right over here."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this right over here is 3.6 trillion. Our revenue that we get through tax revenue and other things is somewhat less. It, in 2012, was on the order of 2.5 trillion. So I'll draw that right over here. So 2.5 trillion. I'll do it in this green color. So this is how much revenue was brought in."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So I'll draw that right over here. So 2.5 trillion. I'll do it in this green color. So this is how much revenue was brought in. So let me write this down. This is 2.5 trillion. Now let's think about how much might get spent under the different scenarios."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is how much revenue was brought in. So let me write this down. This is 2.5 trillion. Now let's think about how much might get spent under the different scenarios. So first I'll lay out a rough approximation of Obama's budget proposal for 2013. So Obama in 2013. So on the spending side, he sees, or he would like to see spending go up by 200 billion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now let's think about how much might get spent under the different scenarios. So first I'll lay out a rough approximation of Obama's budget proposal for 2013. So Obama in 2013. So on the spending side, he sees, or he would like to see spending go up by 200 billion. So let's see this. So on the spending side, we're going to add 200 billion. In the next few videos, we could talk about the pros and cons, the arguments for and against something like that."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So on the spending side, he sees, or he would like to see spending go up by 200 billion. So let's see this. So on the spending side, we're going to add 200 billion. In the next few videos, we could talk about the pros and cons, the arguments for and against something like that. So let me draw that. So relative to the 3.6, we are now at 3.8. So you have a spending increase of, so plus 200 billion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the next few videos, we could talk about the pros and cons, the arguments for and against something like that. So let me draw that. So relative to the 3.6, we are now at 3.8. So you have a spending increase of, so plus 200 billion. That gets us to 3.8 billion in total expenditures. If my best estimate of what the Republicans in Congress would want, so let's write, let's say Republicans in 2013, is that they would actually ideally want spending cuts from these levels. So let's draw that out."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you have a spending increase of, so plus 200 billion. That gets us to 3.8 billion in total expenditures. If my best estimate of what the Republicans in Congress would want, so let's write, let's say Republicans in 2013, is that they would actually ideally want spending cuts from these levels. So let's draw that out. And roughly on the order of about 100 billion. So roughly on the order of 100 billion. They might even want more than that, but let's just go with that for now."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's draw that out. And roughly on the order of about 100 billion. So roughly on the order of 100 billion. They might even want more than that, but let's just go with that for now. So that gets us to a budget of 3.5 trillion. So that's about that right over there. 3.5 trillion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They might even want more than that, but let's just go with that for now. So that gets us to a budget of 3.5 trillion. So that's about that right over there. 3.5 trillion. So once again, relative to 2012, you're going down by 100 billion. Let me make that clear. You're subtracting 100 billion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "3.5 trillion. So once again, relative to 2012, you're going down by 100 billion. Let me make that clear. You're subtracting 100 billion. Now, in the fiscal cliff scenario, the fiscal cliff scenario, the spending will be similar to the Republican ideal right over here. So let me write this over here. Fiscal cliff."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You're subtracting 100 billion. Now, in the fiscal cliff scenario, the fiscal cliff scenario, the spending will be similar to the Republican ideal right over here. So let me write this over here. Fiscal cliff. Fiscal cliff. We are also spending, we are cutting on the order of 100 billion in government expenditures. So let's draw that."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Fiscal cliff. Fiscal cliff. We are also spending, we are cutting on the order of 100 billion in government expenditures. So let's draw that. So at least on the expenditure side. And these are all very rough. I'm sure there are Republicans who would agree and disagree with this, but I'm trying to get my best sense of kind of an aggregate view on things."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's draw that. So at least on the expenditure side. And these are all very rough. I'm sure there are Republicans who would agree and disagree with this, but I'm trying to get my best sense of kind of an aggregate view on things. So the fiscal cliff, we are also cutting spending by 100 billion. By one. So we are cutting by 100 billion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I'm sure there are Republicans who would agree and disagree with this, but I'm trying to get my best sense of kind of an aggregate view on things. So the fiscal cliff, we are also cutting spending by 100 billion. By one. So we are cutting by 100 billion. Now let's go to the revenue side of things. In all of these scenarios for 2013, and just to be clear, the fiscal cliff, that's also for 2013. In all of these scenarios, we get the same revenue from that we got in 2012."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So we are cutting by 100 billion. Now let's go to the revenue side of things. In all of these scenarios for 2013, and just to be clear, the fiscal cliff, that's also for 2013. In all of these scenarios, we get the same revenue from that we got in 2012. So let me draw that. Plus we get about another 100 billion from the growth in the economy. As the economy grows, and even if your tax rates are held completely constant, you're going to get more revenue for the federal government."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In all of these scenarios, we get the same revenue from that we got in 2012. So let me draw that. Plus we get about another 100 billion from the growth in the economy. As the economy grows, and even if your tax rates are held completely constant, you're going to get more revenue for the federal government. So you get about 100 billion. You got about 100 billion from the federal government. And so that gets us to 2.6 trillion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "As the economy grows, and even if your tax rates are held completely constant, you're going to get more revenue for the federal government. So you get about 100 billion. You got about 100 billion from the federal government. And so that gets us to 2.6 trillion. 2.6 trillion without changing anything. So let me just shade all of these in really fast. So that takes us to 2.6 trillion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so that gets us to 2.6 trillion. 2.6 trillion without changing anything. So let me just shade all of these in really fast. So that takes us to 2.6 trillion. So shade that one in. Shade that one in. And then shade that one in."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that takes us to 2.6 trillion. So shade that one in. Shade that one in. And then shade that one in. Now, as you've probably heard on the news, Obama would like to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, and he considers the middle class those who are making less than $250,000 for a family. But he would like to not extend the Bush tax cuts on the rich. And he would like to actually include a few other tax increases also on the wealthy."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then shade that one in. Now, as you've probably heard on the news, Obama would like to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, and he considers the middle class those who are making less than $250,000 for a family. But he would like to not extend the Bush tax cuts on the rich. And he would like to actually include a few other tax increases also on the wealthy. And so you would get an increase of revenue under Obama's plan of $300 billion. This is, once again, very rough. There's probably $50, $60 billion that I'm not fully accounting for, but it'll give you the rough picture."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he would like to actually include a few other tax increases also on the wealthy. And so you would get an increase of revenue under Obama's plan of $300 billion. This is, once again, very rough. There's probably $50, $60 billion that I'm not fully accounting for, but it'll give you the rough picture. So this is $300 billion. And what Obama's doing here, or what at least in the proposal, as far as I could glean, none of this is that simple, what they're talking about right over here is extend tax cuts for middle class, which my best reading seems like we would lose a little under $200 billion of revenue. But then we let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, so that gets us $200 of this."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's probably $50, $60 billion that I'm not fully accounting for, but it'll give you the rough picture. So this is $300 billion. And what Obama's doing here, or what at least in the proposal, as far as I could glean, none of this is that simple, what they're talking about right over here is extend tax cuts for middle class, which my best reading seems like we would lose a little under $200 billion of revenue. But then we let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, so that gets us $200 of this. And then there are other tax increases and other removing loopholes and whatever else that increase this to $300 billion. So let's compare the deficit. So this gets us to, in the Obama scenario, we end up with $2.9 trillion in revenue."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But then we let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, so that gets us $200 of this. And then there are other tax increases and other removing loopholes and whatever else that increase this to $300 billion. So let's compare the deficit. So this gets us to, in the Obama scenario, we end up with $2.9 trillion in revenue. So let's compare what the deficit did from 2012 to Obama's budget plan. So in 2012, you take $3.6 trillion, subtract out $2.5 trillion. There is a gap of $1.1 trillion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this gets us to, in the Obama scenario, we end up with $2.9 trillion in revenue. So let's compare what the deficit did from 2012 to Obama's budget plan. So in 2012, you take $3.6 trillion, subtract out $2.5 trillion. There is a gap of $1.1 trillion. This is the deficit. This is how much the government has to borrow in 2012. Under Obama's budget, what would it be for 2013?"}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There is a gap of $1.1 trillion. This is the deficit. This is how much the government has to borrow in 2012. Under Obama's budget, what would it be for 2013? Well, we're spending $3.8 trillion. We are getting $2.9 trillion. So you have a gap of $900 billion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Under Obama's budget, what would it be for 2013? Well, we're spending $3.8 trillion. We are getting $2.9 trillion. So you have a gap of $900 billion. So there is some deficit reduction, although the deficit is still quite large. The deficit reduction's $200 billion. $100 billion of that came from economic growth."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you have a gap of $900 billion. So there is some deficit reduction, although the deficit is still quite large. The deficit reduction's $200 billion. $100 billion of that came from economic growth. And then the rest is coming from, or a good chunk of that is coming from increased taxes or letting, depending on how you view it, either increased taxes on the wealthy or not letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy. Now let's think about the Republican situation. Well, you have $2.6 trillion in revenue, and you have $3.5 trillion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "$100 billion of that came from economic growth. And then the rest is coming from, or a good chunk of that is coming from increased taxes or letting, depending on how you view it, either increased taxes on the wealthy or not letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy. Now let's think about the Republican situation. Well, you have $2.6 trillion in revenue, and you have $3.5 trillion. Let me write this down. You have $3.5 trillion in expenditure. And once again, you have on the order of a $900 billion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, you have $2.6 trillion in revenue, and you have $3.5 trillion. Let me write this down. You have $3.5 trillion in expenditure. And once again, you have on the order of a $900 billion. $900 billion gap. So in terms of deficit reduction, these things look pretty similar. You have a very similar deficit."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And once again, you have on the order of a $900 billion. $900 billion gap. So in terms of deficit reduction, these things look pretty similar. You have a very similar deficit. Obama is increasing spending, and he would argue that he's investing in things that might help stimulate the economy or invest in America for the future. And then he's making it up by letting the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, for the most part. The Republicans want to cut spending, but they're also letting the tax cuts continue."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have a very similar deficit. Obama is increasing spending, and he would argue that he's investing in things that might help stimulate the economy or invest in America for the future. And then he's making it up by letting the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, for the most part. The Republicans want to cut spending, but they're also letting the tax cuts continue. So you essentially have the same level of deficit reduction. Now I think we are ready to talk about the fiscal cliff. The fiscal cliff, we're spending $100 billion less, and then we are also letting all of the tax cuts for both the wealthy, those who are earning at a family level more than $250,000, and for the middle class, we're letting them all expire."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Republicans want to cut spending, but they're also letting the tax cuts continue. So you essentially have the same level of deficit reduction. Now I think we are ready to talk about the fiscal cliff. The fiscal cliff, we're spending $100 billion less, and then we are also letting all of the tax cuts for both the wealthy, those who are earning at a family level more than $250,000, and for the middle class, we're letting them all expire. And so you have the revenue increased by $400 billion. So this goes up by $400 billion. So plus $400 billion."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The fiscal cliff, we're spending $100 billion less, and then we are also letting all of the tax cuts for both the wealthy, those who are earning at a family level more than $250,000, and for the middle class, we're letting them all expire. And so you have the revenue increased by $400 billion. So this goes up by $400 billion. So plus $400 billion. And so that takes us roughly, once again, this is all rough, to about $3 trillion in revenue and $3.5 trillion in expenses. And so your deficit under the fiscal cliff scenario, the deficit is going to be $500 billion. Now you might say, hey, this is great."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So plus $400 billion. And so that takes us roughly, once again, this is all rough, to about $3 trillion in revenue and $3.5 trillion in expenses. And so your deficit under the fiscal cliff scenario, the deficit is going to be $500 billion. Now you might say, hey, this is great. Everyone talks about the deficit. The deficit is a scary thing. We are borrowing from the future and all that."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now you might say, hey, this is great. Everyone talks about the deficit. The deficit is a scary thing. We are borrowing from the future and all that. Why are people so afraid of the fiscal cliff? The reality is that if you take $500 billion out of the economy, so $100 billion through spending cuts, and then $400 billion from tax increases, so the government is deleveraging, but that money is being sucked out of the economy. And you could argue that there's kind of a multiplier effect as well, that that might endanger what's already a very precarious recovery, that the recovery is really just starting."}, {"video_title": "The fiscal cliff   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We are borrowing from the future and all that. Why are people so afraid of the fiscal cliff? The reality is that if you take $500 billion out of the economy, so $100 billion through spending cuts, and then $400 billion from tax increases, so the government is deleveraging, but that money is being sucked out of the economy. And you could argue that there's kind of a multiplier effect as well, that that might endanger what's already a very precarious recovery, that the recovery is really just starting. The recovery is just starting to happen. And if we were to suck all of this money out of the economy, that's what the argument would be, then that might throw us into another recession or it might make the recovery that much weaker. In the next few videos, we'll discuss that in a little bit more depth, see what people are saying the impact might be and what the arguments might be in either case."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And when we talk about these separate powers and we talk about the checks and balances they have on each other, the thing that you might not have thought about until this point is how many employees each of them have. And so I encourage you to pause this video and just make a guess. How many employees do you think each of these branches have? Or more importantly, how many employees, which of these do you think is the biggest? Well, to the answer to your question, the great majority of federal employees are within the executive branch. And we're talking about a very large number of people. If you don't include soldiers, we are still talking about more than 2.5 million people under the executive branch."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or more importantly, how many employees, which of these do you think is the biggest? Well, to the answer to your question, the great majority of federal employees are within the executive branch. And we're talking about a very large number of people. If you don't include soldiers, we are still talking about more than 2.5 million people under the executive branch. If you include the soldiers, then we're starting to approach closer to four million people under the executive branch. And so what you see on this org chart is that most of it sits under the executive. And that's because the executive branch is charged with running the government."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you don't include soldiers, we are still talking about more than 2.5 million people under the executive branch. If you include the soldiers, then we're starting to approach closer to four million people under the executive branch. And so what you see on this org chart is that most of it sits under the executive. And that's because the executive branch is charged with running the government. And so you have the familiar roles, the president, the vice president, the executive office of the president. Then you have the various cabinet departments right over here, and I could move to the left and the right so you can see them. Things like the Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Education, State, on and on and on and on."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's because the executive branch is charged with running the government. And so you have the familiar roles, the president, the vice president, the executive office of the president. Then you have the various cabinet departments right over here, and I could move to the left and the right so you can see them. Things like the Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Education, State, on and on and on and on. And then within each of these departments, they can be quite, quite large. You could be talking about thousands, or in some cases, even tens of thousands of employees. But it's not just about those departments."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Things like the Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Education, State, on and on and on and on. And then within each of these departments, they can be quite, quite large. You could be talking about thousands, or in some cases, even tens of thousands of employees. But it's not just about those departments. If we go further down in this diagram right over here, you see independent establishments and government corporations that are under the executive branch. Things like the United States Postal Service, the Peace Corps, you have the Federal Reserve System. These are all under the executive branch."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it's not just about those departments. If we go further down in this diagram right over here, you see independent establishments and government corporations that are under the executive branch. Things like the United States Postal Service, the Peace Corps, you have the Federal Reserve System. These are all under the executive branch. And when you take all of these things in total together, it's known as the Federal Bureaucracy. Now, the word bureaucracy might conjure up some images for you. You might imagine going to some type of a government office and trying to apply for something and then having to fill out a bunch of paperwork or sit in line and then wait for something."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These are all under the executive branch. And when you take all of these things in total together, it's known as the Federal Bureaucracy. Now, the word bureaucracy might conjure up some images for you. You might imagine going to some type of a government office and trying to apply for something and then having to fill out a bunch of paperwork or sit in line and then wait for something. And so sometimes it gets a bad name. Even the word bureaucratic tends to mean something that is a lot of process and not necessarily something that moves quickly or moves efficiently. But it's worth noting that even though a lot of people, we like to pick on the bureaucracy, and it is worth debating on how efficient government is at certain things, we do need some form of a bureaucracy."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You might imagine going to some type of a government office and trying to apply for something and then having to fill out a bunch of paperwork or sit in line and then wait for something. And so sometimes it gets a bad name. Even the word bureaucratic tends to mean something that is a lot of process and not necessarily something that moves quickly or moves efficiently. But it's worth noting that even though a lot of people, we like to pick on the bureaucracy, and it is worth debating on how efficient government is at certain things, we do need some form of a bureaucracy. Without a government bureaucracy, you would not have experts checking on whether your food is safe, checking on which drugs actually work. You would not have thoughtful people who are thinking about how do we run our military, how do we discern and how we engage with other countries. So we do need a federal bureaucracy."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it's worth noting that even though a lot of people, we like to pick on the bureaucracy, and it is worth debating on how efficient government is at certain things, we do need some form of a bureaucracy. Without a government bureaucracy, you would not have experts checking on whether your food is safe, checking on which drugs actually work. You would not have thoughtful people who are thinking about how do we run our military, how do we discern and how we engage with other countries. So we do need a federal bureaucracy. These are the folks that are doing things like writing and enforcing regulations. They're issuing fines if you have bad actors, maybe a corporation that is polluting where they're not supposed to. Now where do these people come from?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So we do need a federal bureaucracy. These are the folks that are doing things like writing and enforcing regulations. They're issuing fines if you have bad actors, maybe a corporation that is polluting where they're not supposed to. Now where do these people come from? Well, a lot of times the heads of these various departments, say the Secretary of Defense, who's at the top of the Department of Defense, or the Secretary of State, they are political appointees. They're appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. We talk about that in other videos."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now where do these people come from? Well, a lot of times the heads of these various departments, say the Secretary of Defense, who's at the top of the Department of Defense, or the Secretary of State, they are political appointees. They're appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. We talk about that in other videos. But the great majority of the bureaucracy does not come from what is known as political patronage. Political patronage is, hey, you really helped me with my campaign and I think you're a pretty decent person, I'm gonna give you a plum job at the top of the bureaucracy. And even the word plum job, you should maybe take it with a grain of salt, because some of these jobs do require a lot of responsibility."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We talk about that in other videos. But the great majority of the bureaucracy does not come from what is known as political patronage. Political patronage is, hey, you really helped me with my campaign and I think you're a pretty decent person, I'm gonna give you a plum job at the top of the bureaucracy. And even the word plum job, you should maybe take it with a grain of salt, because some of these jobs do require a lot of responsibility. But the great majority of the bureaucracy is not from political patronage, but it's actually merit-based. That these are folks, they might take the civil service exam, they might have graduate degrees in something that's relevant. Let's say if they're working in the Food and Drug Administration, they might know a little bit about chemistry or biology, and will often, and no organization is perfect, oftentimes people get promoted for the wrong reason, but for the most part, they're going to be promoted based on merit."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to the federal bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And even the word plum job, you should maybe take it with a grain of salt, because some of these jobs do require a lot of responsibility. But the great majority of the bureaucracy is not from political patronage, but it's actually merit-based. That these are folks, they might take the civil service exam, they might have graduate degrees in something that's relevant. Let's say if they're working in the Food and Drug Administration, they might know a little bit about chemistry or biology, and will often, and no organization is perfect, oftentimes people get promoted for the wrong reason, but for the most part, they're going to be promoted based on merit. So it's completely reasonable for us to debate how large this bureaucracy should be. And for sure, our federal bureaucracy is sometimes inefficient. But we do need it, and we're talking about millions of people, many of whom are experts in their field, who are really just trying to help us run our government."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There are explicit powers in the United States Constitution about what the President can and cannot do, but just as being that singular executive at the top of the executive branch, people are going to pay attention to what they say. And this term, bully pulpit, probably isn't exactly what you imagine it to mean. It actually comes to us from Theodore Roosevelt. It's a picture of Theodore Roosevelt giving a speech. He was President from 1901 to 1909. He was actually the youngest person to hold the office of President. He took office when President McKinley was assassinated."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's a picture of Theodore Roosevelt giving a speech. He was President from 1901 to 1909. He was actually the youngest person to hold the office of President. He took office when President McKinley was assassinated. And this is a quote from 1909 from Lyman Abbott, who wrote for The Outlook. \"'Half a dozen of us were with the President, \"'Theodore Roosevelt, in his library. \"'He was sitting at his desk, \"'reading to us his forthcoming message."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He took office when President McKinley was assassinated. And this is a quote from 1909 from Lyman Abbott, who wrote for The Outlook. \"'Half a dozen of us were with the President, \"'Theodore Roosevelt, in his library. \"'He was sitting at his desk, \"'reading to us his forthcoming message. \"'He had just finished reading a paragraph \"'of a distinctly ethical character \"'when he suddenly stopped, \"'swung around in his swivel chair and said, \"'I suppose my critics will call that preaching, \"'but I have got such a bully pulpit.'\" And Theodore Roosevelt was famous for using the term bully a lot. And it doesn't mean to pick on people in Theodore Roosevelt's context."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "\"'He was sitting at his desk, \"'reading to us his forthcoming message. \"'He had just finished reading a paragraph \"'of a distinctly ethical character \"'when he suddenly stopped, \"'swung around in his swivel chair and said, \"'I suppose my critics will call that preaching, \"'but I have got such a bully pulpit.'\" And Theodore Roosevelt was famous for using the term bully a lot. And it doesn't mean to pick on people in Theodore Roosevelt's context. He used it as great, wonderful, bully for you, good for you. So when he said a bully pulpit, he's saying I have such a great platform from which to speak. He's not saying I have a platform from which to pick on people."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it doesn't mean to pick on people in Theodore Roosevelt's context. He used it as great, wonderful, bully for you, good for you. So when he said a bully pulpit, he's saying I have such a great platform from which to speak. He's not saying I have a platform from which to pick on people. And this was before mass media became a significant influence in politics. At this time, recorded audio was just starting to become a thing. Television was not an influence in politics."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's not saying I have a platform from which to pick on people. And this was before mass media became a significant influence in politics. At this time, recorded audio was just starting to become a thing. Television was not an influence in politics. But you can imagine, once you have mass media, especially radio, television, and now social media becoming a major factor, this bully pulpit has only gotten more and more and more significant. One of the strongest examples of presidents using their bully pulpit is the State of the Union Address. State of the Union."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Television was not an influence in politics. But you can imagine, once you have mass media, especially radio, television, and now social media becoming a major factor, this bully pulpit has only gotten more and more and more significant. One of the strongest examples of presidents using their bully pulpit is the State of the Union Address. State of the Union. The Constitution does call for the president to make reports to Congress on the State of the Union, but early presidents, like Thomas Jefferson, just sent a written report. But eventually, over time, the president started giving live reports to the joint houses of Congress in the form of a speech. And then in 1947, you have Truman's State of the Union is televised."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "State of the Union. The Constitution does call for the president to make reports to Congress on the State of the Union, but early presidents, like Thomas Jefferson, just sent a written report. But eventually, over time, the president started giving live reports to the joint houses of Congress in the form of a speech. And then in 1947, you have Truman's State of the Union is televised. Truman televised. And so today, the State of the Union is given every January. This is a major event."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then in 1947, you have Truman's State of the Union is televised. Truman televised. And so today, the State of the Union is given every January. This is a major event. All of the major networks show it. The nation pays attention. And so what Theodore Roosevelt was talking about becomes even more powerful for modern presidents that have mass media at their disposal."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is a major event. All of the major networks show it. The nation pays attention. And so what Theodore Roosevelt was talking about becomes even more powerful for modern presidents that have mass media at their disposal. And to get a good, tangible sense of this power that a president has, I'm gonna show you a video from 1981. This actually will not be a State of the Union Address. This is an address that President Reagan gives to the nation on federal tax reduction."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so what Theodore Roosevelt was talking about becomes even more powerful for modern presidents that have mass media at their disposal. And to get a good, tangible sense of this power that a president has, I'm gonna show you a video from 1981. This actually will not be a State of the Union Address. This is an address that President Reagan gives to the nation on federal tax reduction. Just so that you have context on what the world was like or what the United States was like in 1981, they had stagflation, a stagnant economy with a lot of inflation and high interest rates. I remember at the time, my mom had, I think it was a 17% interest rate on her mortgage, which is incredibly, incredibly high. And so what you're going to see is President Reagan making a direct plea to the American people to convince their representatives to support his tax plan."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is an address that President Reagan gives to the nation on federal tax reduction. Just so that you have context on what the world was like or what the United States was like in 1981, they had stagflation, a stagnant economy with a lot of inflation and high interest rates. I remember at the time, my mom had, I think it was a 17% interest rate on her mortgage, which is incredibly, incredibly high. And so what you're going to see is President Reagan making a direct plea to the American people to convince their representatives to support his tax plan. And think about what President Reagan was able to do that Thomas Jefferson or even Theodore Roosevelt could have only dreamed of. The best way to have a strong foreign policy abroad is to have a strong economy at home. Now the day after tomorrow, Wednesday, the House of Representatives will begin debate on two tax bills."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so what you're going to see is President Reagan making a direct plea to the American people to convince their representatives to support his tax plan. And think about what President Reagan was able to do that Thomas Jefferson or even Theodore Roosevelt could have only dreamed of. The best way to have a strong foreign policy abroad is to have a strong economy at home. Now the day after tomorrow, Wednesday, the House of Representatives will begin debate on two tax bills. And once again, they need to hear from you. I know that doesn't give you much time, but a great deal is at stake. Let me add, those representatives, honestly and sincerely want to know your feelings."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now the day after tomorrow, Wednesday, the House of Representatives will begin debate on two tax bills. And once again, they need to hear from you. I know that doesn't give you much time, but a great deal is at stake. Let me add, those representatives, honestly and sincerely want to know your feelings. They get plenty of input from the special interest groups. They'd like to hear from their home folks. Now let me explain what the situation is and what's at issue."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let me add, those representatives, honestly and sincerely want to know your feelings. They get plenty of input from the special interest groups. They'd like to hear from their home folks. Now let me explain what the situation is and what's at issue. With our budget cuts, we presented a complete program of reduction in tax rates. Again, our purpose was to provide incentive for the individual, incentives for business to encourage production and hiring of the unemployed, and to free up money for investment. Our bill calls for a 5% reduction in the income tax rates by October 1st, a 10% reduction beginning July 1st, 1982, and another 10% cut a year later, a 25% total reduction over three years."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now let me explain what the situation is and what's at issue. With our budget cuts, we presented a complete program of reduction in tax rates. Again, our purpose was to provide incentive for the individual, incentives for business to encourage production and hiring of the unemployed, and to free up money for investment. Our bill calls for a 5% reduction in the income tax rates by October 1st, a 10% reduction beginning July 1st, 1982, and another 10% cut a year later, a 25% total reduction over three years. But then to ensure the tax cut is permanent, we call for indexing the tax rates in 1985, which means adjusting them for inflation. As it is now, if you get a cost of living raised that's intended to keep you even with inflation, you find that the increase in the number of dollars you get may very likely move you into a higher tax bracket, and you wind up poorer than you were. This is called bracket creep."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Our bill calls for a 5% reduction in the income tax rates by October 1st, a 10% reduction beginning July 1st, 1982, and another 10% cut a year later, a 25% total reduction over three years. But then to ensure the tax cut is permanent, we call for indexing the tax rates in 1985, which means adjusting them for inflation. As it is now, if you get a cost of living raised that's intended to keep you even with inflation, you find that the increase in the number of dollars you get may very likely move you into a higher tax bracket, and you wind up poorer than you were. This is called bracket creep. Bracket creep is an insidious tax. Let me give an example. If you earned $10,000 a year in 1972, by 1980, you had to earn $19,700 just to stay even with inflation, but that's before taxes."}, {"video_title": "The president's bully pulpit   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is called bracket creep. Bracket creep is an insidious tax. Let me give an example. If you earned $10,000 a year in 1972, by 1980, you had to earn $19,700 just to stay even with inflation, but that's before taxes. Come April 15th, you find your tax rates have increased 30%. Have you been wondering why you don't seem as well off as you were a few years back? It's because government makes a profit on inflation."}, {"video_title": "Economic rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This includes all of the rights associated with your ability to make money and your ability to own stuff. The most basic of these rights is to acquire, use, transfer, and dispose of property. That is, you can buy stuff, you can use it, you can give it or sell it to someone else, and you can throw it away. These property rights also include your right to receive just compensation for the taking of private property for public use, which is protected by the Fifth Amendment. So if the government decides that they need your yard because they're building a highway, they must compensate you fairly for that land. The government also protects your right to copyright and patent so that you can sue someone who steals your ideas, work, or inventions. So this includes your right to own things that aren't physical objects or land, like a song you wrote."}, {"video_title": "Economic rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These property rights also include your right to receive just compensation for the taking of private property for public use, which is protected by the Fifth Amendment. So if the government decides that they need your yard because they're building a highway, they must compensate you fairly for that land. The government also protects your right to copyright and patent so that you can sue someone who steals your ideas, work, or inventions. So this includes your right to own things that aren't physical objects or land, like a song you wrote. Then there are the economic rights that safeguard your freedom to own your own labor and the money you earn from it. Those include the right to earn a wage, the right to choose your own work and change your employment, and the right to work in safe conditions. Lastly, you have economic rights to associate with and combine your interests with others, such as the right to join labor unions and professional associations to advocate for yourself and for other members of your profession."}, {"video_title": "Economic rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this includes your right to own things that aren't physical objects or land, like a song you wrote. Then there are the economic rights that safeguard your freedom to own your own labor and the money you earn from it. Those include the right to earn a wage, the right to choose your own work and change your employment, and the right to work in safe conditions. Lastly, you have economic rights to associate with and combine your interests with others, such as the right to join labor unions and professional associations to advocate for yourself and for other members of your profession. You can establish and operate a business and enter into lawful contracts with others. The ability to own one's own property, labor, and business dealings is foundational to the system of capitalism in which individuals control economic organizations rather than the state or cooperatives. So now let's do a couple of scenarios so you can check your skills."}, {"video_title": "Economic rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Lastly, you have economic rights to associate with and combine your interests with others, such as the right to join labor unions and professional associations to advocate for yourself and for other members of your profession. You can establish and operate a business and enter into lawful contracts with others. The ability to own one's own property, labor, and business dealings is foundational to the system of capitalism in which individuals control economic organizations rather than the state or cooperatives. So now let's do a couple of scenarios so you can check your skills. I'll give you a scenario and you see if you can identify which economic right is being exercised or violated. Number one, Yale and a group of her coworkers are frustrated with the working conditions at the grocery store they work at. They're forced to work 10-hour days with only a 30-minute break for lunch."}, {"video_title": "Economic rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So now let's do a couple of scenarios so you can check your skills. I'll give you a scenario and you see if you can identify which economic right is being exercised or violated. Number one, Yale and a group of her coworkers are frustrated with the working conditions at the grocery store they work at. They're forced to work 10-hour days with only a 30-minute break for lunch. Several of her coworkers have started reporting knee problems because they aren't allowed to sit. Yale gathers a majority of employees to talk about organizing a union to demand less hours and more breaks. Her boss hears about the meeting and fires Yale."}, {"video_title": "Economic rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They're forced to work 10-hour days with only a 30-minute break for lunch. Several of her coworkers have started reporting knee problems because they aren't allowed to sit. Yale gathers a majority of employees to talk about organizing a union to demand less hours and more breaks. Her boss hears about the meeting and fires Yale. Which right did her employer violate in this scenario? The right to join a labor union. Yale has the right to join unions or professional associations as she chooses."}, {"video_title": "Economic rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Her boss hears about the meeting and fires Yale. Which right did her employer violate in this scenario? The right to join a labor union. Yale has the right to join unions or professional associations as she chooses. Number two, one day a city council member knocks on Ty's door. He tells Ty that the city needs half of his backyard to expand the public park that sits on the other side of Ty's fence. Ty refuses to give the land away, but the city council member tells Ty he doesn't have a choice and that he will receive a check for $50 to repair the fence once they take it down tomorrow."}, {"video_title": "Economic rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yale has the right to join unions or professional associations as she chooses. Number two, one day a city council member knocks on Ty's door. He tells Ty that the city needs half of his backyard to expand the public park that sits on the other side of Ty's fence. Ty refuses to give the land away, but the city council member tells Ty he doesn't have a choice and that he will receive a check for $50 to repair the fence once they take it down tomorrow. Which right did the city council violate in this scenario? The right to just compensation for the taking of private property for public use. Ty's backyard is worth a lot more than $50."}, {"video_title": "Economic rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Ty refuses to give the land away, but the city council member tells Ty he doesn't have a choice and that he will receive a check for $50 to repair the fence once they take it down tomorrow. Which right did the city council violate in this scenario? The right to just compensation for the taking of private property for public use. Ty's backyard is worth a lot more than $50. Number three, Hamza's boss calls him into his office one day and lets him know that there's a new opening in another department in the company. But Hamza doesn't want to move departments and enjoys the job he has. He requests not to change."}, {"video_title": "Economic rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Ty's backyard is worth a lot more than $50. Number three, Hamza's boss calls him into his office one day and lets him know that there's a new opening in another department in the company. But Hamza doesn't want to move departments and enjoys the job he has. He requests not to change. His boss tells him that if he doesn't move to the new department, she'll have to fire him. Instead, Hamza quits. He starts looking for a new job immediately."}, {"video_title": "Economic rights of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He requests not to change. His boss tells him that if he doesn't move to the new department, she'll have to fire him. Instead, Hamza quits. He starts looking for a new job immediately. Which right did Hamza use in this scenario? He used his right to change employment. Okay, that's all for this video."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In this video, we're going to cover what criteria a non-citizen must meet to become a citizen, a process we call naturalization. Some of the requirements are obvious and verifiable, while others are tested through the naturalization process. There are nine requirements that an immigrant must meet before they can apply for naturalization, and four of the first five all have to do with how long an applicant has lived in the United States. First, they have to be 18 years old. Does this mean that children can't become citizens? No, but they can't apply on their own. If their parent or parents apply for naturalization, a child can inherit their parent's citizenship if they make it through the process."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "First, they have to be 18 years old. Does this mean that children can't become citizens? No, but they can't apply on their own. If their parent or parents apply for naturalization, a child can inherit their parent's citizenship if they make it through the process. Second, the applicant has to have been a permanent resident for at least five years. Unless they're married to an American citizen, then it's only three years. So this means that undocumented immigrants and foreign diplomats are not eligible for naturalization."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If their parent or parents apply for naturalization, a child can inherit their parent's citizenship if they make it through the process. Second, the applicant has to have been a permanent resident for at least five years. Unless they're married to an American citizen, then it's only three years. So this means that undocumented immigrants and foreign diplomats are not eligible for naturalization. Third, they have to show that they've lived in the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services District they've been living in when they applied for at least three months. There are 26 U.S. CIS Districts, which also include U.S. territories. Fourth, they have to have lived in the United States continuously for at least five years."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this means that undocumented immigrants and foreign diplomats are not eligible for naturalization. Third, they have to show that they've lived in the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services District they've been living in when they applied for at least three months. There are 26 U.S. CIS Districts, which also include U.S. territories. Fourth, they have to have lived in the United States continuously for at least five years. A green card holder can leave for short periods of time, but if they've lived outside the United States for more than six months, they could compromise their eligibility for naturalization. Included in that is the fifth requirement, that they have to have been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the five years of residency they maintained before they filed their application for naturalization. These five cover the residency requirements for naturalization, but there are four other requirements that are verified during the naturalization process itself."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Fourth, they have to have lived in the United States continuously for at least five years. A green card holder can leave for short periods of time, but if they've lived outside the United States for more than six months, they could compromise their eligibility for naturalization. Included in that is the fifth requirement, that they have to have been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the five years of residency they maintained before they filed their application for naturalization. These five cover the residency requirements for naturalization, but there are four other requirements that are verified during the naturalization process itself. If you remember the steps of the naturalization process, you should remember that at one point a person seeking naturalization needs to meet with a U.S. CIS official for an interview and to take the naturalization test. It's during this step that the U.S. CIS official tests the applicant on the next two requirements, their ability to understand English and their knowledge of U.S. history and government. The federal government requires that all naturalized citizens can read, write, speak, and understand conversational English."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These five cover the residency requirements for naturalization, but there are four other requirements that are verified during the naturalization process itself. If you remember the steps of the naturalization process, you should remember that at one point a person seeking naturalization needs to meet with a U.S. CIS official for an interview and to take the naturalization test. It's during this step that the U.S. CIS official tests the applicant on the next two requirements, their ability to understand English and their knowledge of U.S. history and government. The federal government requires that all naturalized citizens can read, write, speak, and understand conversational English. The interview itself serves as the test for the speaking portion, and after the interview, the applicant has to read one out of three chosen sentences correctly. And for the writing test, the applicant will write an English sentence provided by the interviewer. Following the English portion, the interviewer asks 10 questions about U.S. history and government, and the applicant must answer at least six correctly."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The federal government requires that all naturalized citizens can read, write, speak, and understand conversational English. The interview itself serves as the test for the speaking portion, and after the interview, the applicant has to read one out of three chosen sentences correctly. And for the writing test, the applicant will write an English sentence provided by the interviewer. Following the English portion, the interviewer asks 10 questions about U.S. history and government, and the applicant must answer at least six correctly. Some examples of questions that an interviewer can ask are, how many amendments does the Constitution have? Or who's in charge of the executive branch? Then there are only two requirements left, and they're the hardest to verify because they aren't entirely obvious."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Following the English portion, the interviewer asks 10 questions about U.S. history and government, and the applicant must answer at least six correctly. Some examples of questions that an interviewer can ask are, how many amendments does the Constitution have? Or who's in charge of the executive branch? Then there are only two requirements left, and they're the hardest to verify because they aren't entirely obvious. The eighth requirement for naturalization is that you have to be a person of good moral character. Trying to determine a person's character is hard to do. Do you think you could get a good grasp of a person's character in an interview that lasts a few hours or reading an application they filled out?"}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then there are only two requirements left, and they're the hardest to verify because they aren't entirely obvious. The eighth requirement for naturalization is that you have to be a person of good moral character. Trying to determine a person's character is hard to do. Do you think you could get a good grasp of a person's character in an interview that lasts a few hours or reading an application they filled out? The way the government determines moral character is by looking to see if an applicant has a criminal history, but that isn't exactly foolproof. They can look into American criminal databases, but they don't have access to other countries' criminal records. U.S.CIS often has to rely on self-reporting, and while it is rare for someone with a criminal history to make it through the naturalization process, it has been known to happen."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Do you think you could get a good grasp of a person's character in an interview that lasts a few hours or reading an application they filled out? The way the government determines moral character is by looking to see if an applicant has a criminal history, but that isn't exactly foolproof. They can look into American criminal databases, but they don't have access to other countries' criminal records. U.S.CIS often has to rely on self-reporting, and while it is rare for someone with a criminal history to make it through the naturalization process, it has been known to happen. The final requirement is that the applicant has to demonstrate an attachment to the principles and ideals of the U.S. Constitution. This means that an applicant has to prove that they would actively support the Constitution and support a democratic form of government. If someone is hostile to the form of government in the United States, they cannot become a citizen."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "U.S.CIS often has to rely on self-reporting, and while it is rare for someone with a criminal history to make it through the naturalization process, it has been known to happen. The final requirement is that the applicant has to demonstrate an attachment to the principles and ideals of the U.S. Constitution. This means that an applicant has to prove that they would actively support the Constitution and support a democratic form of government. If someone is hostile to the form of government in the United States, they cannot become a citizen. One way that a person proves this is by agreeing to take an oath of allegiance in a public ceremony. In this oath, they must promise to renounce all foreign allegiance, though that does not mean they have to give up their citizenship to other countries, and promise to give full allegiance to the United States, its Constitution, and its laws. They must also promise to perform all duties and obligations of citizenship, including defending the country when called upon."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If someone is hostile to the form of government in the United States, they cannot become a citizen. One way that a person proves this is by agreeing to take an oath of allegiance in a public ceremony. In this oath, they must promise to renounce all foreign allegiance, though that does not mean they have to give up their citizenship to other countries, and promise to give full allegiance to the United States, its Constitution, and its laws. They must also promise to perform all duties and obligations of citizenship, including defending the country when called upon. So now that we've covered all of the requirements, let's go through an example to see if you can determine whether an immigrant is eligible for citizenship or not. Lorenzo has lived most of his life in Italy, but now he wants to become a U.S. citizen. He came to the United States three years ago and has been a legal resident ever since."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They must also promise to perform all duties and obligations of citizenship, including defending the country when called upon. So now that we've covered all of the requirements, let's go through an example to see if you can determine whether an immigrant is eligible for citizenship or not. Lorenzo has lived most of his life in Italy, but now he wants to become a U.S. citizen. He came to the United States three years ago and has been a legal resident ever since. He has never been in trouble with the law, either in the United States or in Italy. He enjoys owning his own home and living in a friendly neighborhood. Lorenzo is 25 years old, speaks English very well, and has recently taken a class at a local community college on U.S. history for new citizens."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He came to the United States three years ago and has been a legal resident ever since. He has never been in trouble with the law, either in the United States or in Italy. He enjoys owning his own home and living in a friendly neighborhood. Lorenzo is 25 years old, speaks English very well, and has recently taken a class at a local community college on U.S. history for new citizens. He filled out his naturalization application form last week. So let's check off all of the requirements that Lorenzo does have. Take a second and pause this video to try and figure it out on your own first."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Lorenzo is 25 years old, speaks English very well, and has recently taken a class at a local community college on U.S. history for new citizens. He filled out his naturalization application form last week. So let's check off all of the requirements that Lorenzo does have. Take a second and pause this video to try and figure it out on your own first. All right, so Lorenzo is 25 years old, so he meets the minimum age requirement. He's only been a permanent resident for three years, and he's not married to a U.S. citizen, so he doesn't meet the residency requirement. He's lived in Portland for three years, so he meets the third and fifth requirements, but he doesn't meet the fourth requirement."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Take a second and pause this video to try and figure it out on your own first. All right, so Lorenzo is 25 years old, so he meets the minimum age requirement. He's only been a permanent resident for three years, and he's not married to a U.S. citizen, so he doesn't meet the residency requirement. He's lived in Portland for three years, so he meets the third and fifth requirements, but he doesn't meet the fourth requirement. Lorenzo can speak English very well and took a class on U.S. history for new immigrants, so we can assume that he can pass both portions of the naturalization test. And since he's never been in any legal trouble, we'll put a check mark next to him having good moral character. We can't exactly tell if he's attached to the principles and ideals of the U.S. Constitution, so we'll put a question mark next to that requirement."}, {"video_title": "Who is eligible for naturalization   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's lived in Portland for three years, so he meets the third and fifth requirements, but he doesn't meet the fourth requirement. Lorenzo can speak English very well and took a class on U.S. history for new immigrants, so we can assume that he can pass both portions of the naturalization test. And since he's never been in any legal trouble, we'll put a check mark next to him having good moral character. We can't exactly tell if he's attached to the principles and ideals of the U.S. Constitution, so we'll put a question mark next to that requirement. All right, given all this information, do you think Lorenzo is eligible to apply for naturalization? If you answered no, you're correct. Even though Lorenzo meets a lot of the requirements, he doesn't meet all of them, and eligibility is an all-or-nothing type deal."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What we're going to do in this video is focus on the budget process in the US Congress. And just as a reminder, that's one of the major functions of the United States Congress, is to pass a budget for the executive branch, to decide how much money the executive branch has to use to actually function. And when it comes to the budget, the two most powerful committees are the Appropriations Committees in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. They get to decide how much money goes to various departments and programs in the federal government. Just for context, let's get a broad view of what the federal budget looks like and how it has changed over time. So over here you see the trend from the early 80s all the way until projected a few years into the future at the time of this video being created. And you can see the absolute level of the federal budget has gone from a little under one trillion dollars and it is now approaching four trillion dollars."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They get to decide how much money goes to various departments and programs in the federal government. Just for context, let's get a broad view of what the federal budget looks like and how it has changed over time. So over here you see the trend from the early 80s all the way until projected a few years into the future at the time of this video being created. And you can see the absolute level of the federal budget has gone from a little under one trillion dollars and it is now approaching four trillion dollars. And this view of the breakdown of the various spending areas gives us a better sense of some trends. As we mentioned in other videos, there's a significant chunk of mandatory spending. Mandatory spending are things that by law we have already obligated ourselves to."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you can see the absolute level of the federal budget has gone from a little under one trillion dollars and it is now approaching four trillion dollars. And this view of the breakdown of the various spending areas gives us a better sense of some trends. As we mentioned in other videos, there's a significant chunk of mandatory spending. Mandatory spending are things that by law we have already obligated ourselves to. And the big ones here are Social Security and Medicare. And you can see that they have gone collectively from a little over 20% of the federal budget to now approaching almost 2 3rds of the federal budget. Now another chunk of this budget that we are obligated to pay is the net interest on our national debt."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Mandatory spending are things that by law we have already obligated ourselves to. And the big ones here are Social Security and Medicare. And you can see that they have gone collectively from a little over 20% of the federal budget to now approaching almost 2 3rds of the federal budget. Now another chunk of this budget that we are obligated to pay is the net interest on our national debt. We are borrowers as a country and so we need to pay interest. Now everything else here you can consider to be discretionary. That would be this national defense piece right here in purple."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now another chunk of this budget that we are obligated to pay is the net interest on our national debt. We are borrowers as a country and so we need to pay interest. Now everything else here you can consider to be discretionary. That would be this national defense piece right here in purple. And then everything above this net interest piece. And that's what the appropriations committees are going to decide on. Where to spend that money?"}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That would be this national defense piece right here in purple. And then everything above this net interest piece. And that's what the appropriations committees are going to decide on. Where to spend that money? How much does national defense get? And how much do these other priorities for the country get? Now generally speaking, the amount of money allocated to various programs and various departments, how it is spent, tends to be decided by the executive branch."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Where to spend that money? How much does national defense get? And how much do these other priorities for the country get? Now generally speaking, the amount of money allocated to various programs and various departments, how it is spent, tends to be decided by the executive branch. Congress's job is to set the budget. But that is not always the case. Congress can also set aside portions of this budget for specific projects."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now generally speaking, the amount of money allocated to various programs and various departments, how it is spent, tends to be decided by the executive branch. Congress's job is to set the budget. But that is not always the case. Congress can also set aside portions of this budget for specific projects. And the setting aside of parts of the budget for specific projects is known as earmarks. And to make things tangible, here are some examples of earmarks from the highway bill that was passed in 2005. And as you can see, it just lists a bunch of special projects."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Congress can also set aside portions of this budget for specific projects. And the setting aside of parts of the budget for specific projects is known as earmarks. And to make things tangible, here are some examples of earmarks from the highway bill that was passed in 2005. And as you can see, it just lists a bunch of special projects. And this goes on for tens and sometimes hundreds of pages. So here in California, there's a project to construct safe access to streets for bicyclists and pedestrians, including crosswalks, sidewalks, and traffic calming measures in Covina, California. $400,000."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And as you can see, it just lists a bunch of special projects. And this goes on for tens and sometimes hundreds of pages. So here in California, there's a project to construct safe access to streets for bicyclists and pedestrians, including crosswalks, sidewalks, and traffic calming measures in Covina, California. $400,000. If we go down here to number five, renovate and expand National Packard Museum and adjacent historic Packard facilities. And that is almost $3 million. And so one thing that's probably crossing your mind is, hey, this is a national highway bill, and you have these little projects that seem very, very, very local."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "$400,000. If we go down here to number five, renovate and expand National Packard Museum and adjacent historic Packard facilities. And that is almost $3 million. And so one thing that's probably crossing your mind is, hey, this is a national highway bill, and you have these little projects that seem very, very, very local. And these earmarks here, these set-asides, because they feel sometimes wasteful or they're being used more as a political tool versus something that the federal government should actually worry about. Sometimes these types of earmarks are referred to as pork barrel projects. Pork, pork barrel projects."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so one thing that's probably crossing your mind is, hey, this is a national highway bill, and you have these little projects that seem very, very, very local. And these earmarks here, these set-asides, because they feel sometimes wasteful or they're being used more as a political tool versus something that the federal government should actually worry about. Sometimes these types of earmarks are referred to as pork barrel projects. Pork, pork barrel projects. And the reason why I introduced both words are earmarks are just a general thing. You can decide whether they're good or bad. Many of those earmarks that I listed, even though they are for specific projects in specific locations, they seemed at least related to the highway bill."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Pork, pork barrel projects. And the reason why I introduced both words are earmarks are just a general thing. You can decide whether they're good or bad. Many of those earmarks that I listed, even though they are for specific projects in specific locations, they seemed at least related to the highway bill. But it would be very reasonable for some folks to say, why is Congress in the business of funding these specific projects? Isn't their job to just set the budget, to figure out how much the Department of Transportation gets and then let them, as part of the executive branch, decide how to execute on improving the national highway system or our transportation system? And so they would argue that that is pork, that those are pork barrel projects, that those are government waste."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Many of those earmarks that I listed, even though they are for specific projects in specific locations, they seemed at least related to the highway bill. But it would be very reasonable for some folks to say, why is Congress in the business of funding these specific projects? Isn't their job to just set the budget, to figure out how much the Department of Transportation gets and then let them, as part of the executive branch, decide how to execute on improving the national highway system or our transportation system? And so they would argue that that is pork, that those are pork barrel projects, that those are government waste. Now, to get a sense of how significant earmarks and debatably pork barrel have been in the past, we have this chart from Citizens Against Government Waste, and it shows earmark spending from 1991 to 2016. And you will immediately notice some things. Going from 1991 all the way until about 2006, you have this steady upward trend in earmark spending, all the way to the peak in 2006 of $29 billion of earmarks."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so they would argue that that is pork, that those are pork barrel projects, that those are government waste. Now, to get a sense of how significant earmarks and debatably pork barrel have been in the past, we have this chart from Citizens Against Government Waste, and it shows earmark spending from 1991 to 2016. And you will immediately notice some things. Going from 1991 all the way until about 2006, you have this steady upward trend in earmark spending, all the way to the peak in 2006 of $29 billion of earmarks. But then something interesting happens. In 2011, it looks like it gets pretty close to zero, and then it starts trending up from there, but it's much lower than it was before. And that's because as we get into this period after 2006, earmark spending become a very big political issue."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Going from 1991 all the way until about 2006, you have this steady upward trend in earmark spending, all the way to the peak in 2006 of $29 billion of earmarks. But then something interesting happens. In 2011, it looks like it gets pretty close to zero, and then it starts trending up from there, but it's much lower than it was before. And that's because as we get into this period after 2006, earmark spending become a very big political issue. Some of these projects, there was famously an earmark for a bridge to an island in Alaska that was going to cost several hundreds of millions of dollars. It was later canceled, but it got a lot of press, and a lot of politicians started to make it their mission to do away with earmark spending. Some of these pork barrel projects were easy to get people worked up about and say, hey, look, this is a sign of government waste."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's because as we get into this period after 2006, earmark spending become a very big political issue. Some of these projects, there was famously an earmark for a bridge to an island in Alaska that was going to cost several hundreds of millions of dollars. It was later canceled, but it got a lot of press, and a lot of politicians started to make it their mission to do away with earmark spending. Some of these pork barrel projects were easy to get people worked up about and say, hey, look, this is a sign of government waste. And so in the end of 2010, both the Senate and the House of Representatives passing resolutions to end earmark spending, although you can see that it still exists in some way, at least according to the Citizens Against Government Waste. Now at first, this seems very good because $29 billion on things like museums or maybe bridges that go to islands that very few people live on does not seem like a good idea. It seems like classic examples of government waste."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Some of these pork barrel projects were easy to get people worked up about and say, hey, look, this is a sign of government waste. And so in the end of 2010, both the Senate and the House of Representatives passing resolutions to end earmark spending, although you can see that it still exists in some way, at least according to the Citizens Against Government Waste. Now at first, this seems very good because $29 billion on things like museums or maybe bridges that go to islands that very few people live on does not seem like a good idea. It seems like classic examples of government waste. But it's also important to keep it in context. Remember, the federal budget is approaching $4 trillion. So even in 2006, when the federal budget was a little under $3 trillion, this was only about 1% of the federal budget."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It seems like classic examples of government waste. But it's also important to keep it in context. Remember, the federal budget is approaching $4 trillion. So even in 2006, when the federal budget was a little under $3 trillion, this was only about 1% of the federal budget. And so even though earmarks, which often get called pork barrel projects, became a lightning rod for a lot of media attention because they seemed so wasteful, in most years, they represent well under 1% of the federal budget. And there are folks who would even argue that earmarks are a good thing. By essentially allowing congresspeople to set aside an earmark for something in their district, it allows it, it makes it easier for bills to get passed."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So even in 2006, when the federal budget was a little under $3 trillion, this was only about 1% of the federal budget. And so even though earmarks, which often get called pork barrel projects, became a lightning rod for a lot of media attention because they seemed so wasteful, in most years, they represent well under 1% of the federal budget. And there are folks who would even argue that earmarks are a good thing. By essentially allowing congresspeople to set aside an earmark for something in their district, it allows it, it makes it easier for bills to get passed. And it's only costing us less than 1% to do it. It's only something that's streamlining the political process. Other arguments they make is these earmarks aren't spending above and beyond the regular budget."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "By essentially allowing congresspeople to set aside an earmark for something in their district, it allows it, it makes it easier for bills to get passed. And it's only costing us less than 1% to do it. It's only something that's streamlining the political process. Other arguments they make is these earmarks aren't spending above and beyond the regular budget. If they do not set aside this money for these projects in these various districts or in these various states, well, then the executive branch is just going to decide on how to use that money. And ideally, the executive branch would open these things up for bid, these would be competitive processes. But there's examples of the executive branch also favoring certain regions or certain projects."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Other arguments they make is these earmarks aren't spending above and beyond the regular budget. If they do not set aside this money for these projects in these various districts or in these various states, well, then the executive branch is just going to decide on how to use that money. And ideally, the executive branch would open these things up for bid, these would be competitive processes. But there's examples of the executive branch also favoring certain regions or certain projects. So the budget could arguably be the same whether or not there are those earmarks. It's really a question of whether it is congress that is deciding where these special projects go or whether it is the executive branch. Now another term that you might often hear with the legislative process, something that helps streamline it, is the term log rolling."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But there's examples of the executive branch also favoring certain regions or certain projects. So the budget could arguably be the same whether or not there are those earmarks. It's really a question of whether it is congress that is deciding where these special projects go or whether it is the executive branch. Now another term that you might often hear with the legislative process, something that helps streamline it, is the term log rolling. Now log rolling can apply to a lot of things, not just in terms of where you spend money. Log rolling is just the idea that let's say that I am congressperson A and you are congressperson B, and I really like this bill right over here. I like bill number one, and you like bill number two, and I agree to support you if you agree to support me."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now another term that you might often hear with the legislative process, something that helps streamline it, is the term log rolling. Now log rolling can apply to a lot of things, not just in terms of where you spend money. Log rolling is just the idea that let's say that I am congressperson A and you are congressperson B, and I really like this bill right over here. I like bill number one, and you like bill number two, and I agree to support you if you agree to support me. Here I described log rolling where we support each other's bills, but we could even have log rolling where we support each other's parts of bills. For example, I'll support your transportation museum in your state if you support my bicycle path in my state. So I'll leave you there."}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I like bill number one, and you like bill number two, and I agree to support you if you agree to support me. Here I described log rolling where we support each other's bills, but we could even have log rolling where we support each other's parts of bills. For example, I'll support your transportation museum in your state if you support my bicycle path in my state. So I'll leave you there. The big takeaways here are to appreciate the size of the federal budget, where it gets spent, and some of the processes used to help pass that federal budget. We also talked about earmarks, which sometimes get called pork barrel projects. And it's interesting for you to think about after this video, are they good or are they bad?"}, {"video_title": "Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So I'll leave you there. The big takeaways here are to appreciate the size of the federal budget, where it gets spent, and some of the processes used to help pass that federal budget. We also talked about earmarks, which sometimes get called pork barrel projects. And it's interesting for you to think about after this video, are they good or are they bad? At first, especially when you look at the media attention, they seem clearly bad, they seem wasteful. But when you think about that they're less than 1% of the budget, and they might help streamline the passing of other important legislation, maybe making it even more bipartisan, who knows, some would argue that they might not be as bad as people first believed. You decide."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more about Roe versus Wade, I spoke to two experts on the case. Clark Forsyth is Senior Counsel for Americans United for Life and the author of Abuse of Discretion, the Inside Story of Roe versus Wade. Melissa Murray is the Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of Law at Berkeley Law School, where she also serves as the Faculty Director for the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice. Mr. Forsyth, could you set the stage for us a little bit? What was going on at this time period? Well, there were efforts in the 1960s to repeal abortion laws in the states, and when abortion activists were dissatisfied with those efforts, they decided to go into the courts. And around 1969, they took some cases into the courts, and ultimately there were 20 or more cases challenging state laws in the courts between 1969 and 1973, and Roe versus Wade was a case from Texas."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Mr. Forsyth, could you set the stage for us a little bit? What was going on at this time period? Well, there were efforts in the 1960s to repeal abortion laws in the states, and when abortion activists were dissatisfied with those efforts, they decided to go into the courts. And around 1969, they took some cases into the courts, and ultimately there were 20 or more cases challenging state laws in the courts between 1969 and 1973, and Roe versus Wade was a case from Texas. Roe was litigated in the early 1970s. It was a period of enormous change in the United States. We were beginning to see the beginnings of the women's rights movements, the beginnings of the gay rights movement, and of course, the civil rights movement of the 1960s was moving in a lot of different directions."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And around 1969, they took some cases into the courts, and ultimately there were 20 or more cases challenging state laws in the courts between 1969 and 1973, and Roe versus Wade was a case from Texas. Roe was litigated in the early 1970s. It was a period of enormous change in the United States. We were beginning to see the beginnings of the women's rights movements, the beginnings of the gay rights movement, and of course, the civil rights movement of the 1960s was moving in a lot of different directions. At the time, the question of abortion was very much on the minds of lots of different state legislatures because there had been moves to liberalize much of the criminal law that dealt with matters of sex and sexuality, including abortion. At the time, four states, New York, Alaska, Hawaii, and I believe Washington, had actually taken steps to repeal their laws criminalizing abortion, and about 13 other states had taken efforts to liberalize their laws criminalizing abortions, but in a number of other states, around at least 20 or more, there remained on the books laws that absolutely criminalized abortion, except in situations where it would be necessary to preserve the woman's health or life, or in cases of rape, incest, or fetal anomaly. Abortion rights attorneys sought plaintiffs who could challenge the Texas law and the Georgia law."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We were beginning to see the beginnings of the women's rights movements, the beginnings of the gay rights movement, and of course, the civil rights movement of the 1960s was moving in a lot of different directions. At the time, the question of abortion was very much on the minds of lots of different state legislatures because there had been moves to liberalize much of the criminal law that dealt with matters of sex and sexuality, including abortion. At the time, four states, New York, Alaska, Hawaii, and I believe Washington, had actually taken steps to repeal their laws criminalizing abortion, and about 13 other states had taken efforts to liberalize their laws criminalizing abortions, but in a number of other states, around at least 20 or more, there remained on the books laws that absolutely criminalized abortion, except in situations where it would be necessary to preserve the woman's health or life, or in cases of rape, incest, or fetal anomaly. Abortion rights attorneys sought plaintiffs who could challenge the Texas law and the Georgia law. There were two attorneys from Texas who found Norma McCorvey, who they named, gave the pseudonym of Jane Roe for purposes of protecting her privacy, and she became the nominal plaintiff. And so Norma McCorvey brought this case. She was a 22-year-old woman living in Dallas County, Texas, who found herself pregnant for the third time."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Abortion rights attorneys sought plaintiffs who could challenge the Texas law and the Georgia law. There were two attorneys from Texas who found Norma McCorvey, who they named, gave the pseudonym of Jane Roe for purposes of protecting her privacy, and she became the nominal plaintiff. And so Norma McCorvey brought this case. She was a 22-year-old woman living in Dallas County, Texas, who found herself pregnant for the third time. She was unmarried. Her first child had been born, a daughter, and she had ultimately signed over custody of her daughter to her mother to raise because she was having a bit of an itinerant life, wasn't able to take care of her child. The second child that she bore, she gave up for adoption."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "She was a 22-year-old woman living in Dallas County, Texas, who found herself pregnant for the third time. She was unmarried. Her first child had been born, a daughter, and she had ultimately signed over custody of her daughter to her mother to raise because she was having a bit of an itinerant life, wasn't able to take care of her child. The second child that she bore, she gave up for adoption. And so when she found herself pregnant for a third time, she wasn't willing to do either of these things again and wanted to safely and legally terminate her pregnancy, but this was impossible under the Texas law. Texas had, since the 19th century, absolutely criminalized abortion, except in cases where it was necessary for the health and safety of the mother. And so she then was faced with the question of what was she going to do?"}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The second child that she bore, she gave up for adoption. And so when she found herself pregnant for a third time, she wasn't willing to do either of these things again and wanted to safely and legally terminate her pregnancy, but this was impossible under the Texas law. Texas had, since the 19th century, absolutely criminalized abortion, except in cases where it was necessary for the health and safety of the mother. And so she then was faced with the question of what was she going to do? And the only thing she could think to do then was to actually challenge the law. So she was put in contact with Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey, two young women who had recently graduated from law school. Sarah Weddington was only 26 years old at the time that she helped Norma McCorvey bring this case, but they decided to sue the state of Texas to challenge the constitutionality of Texas's criminal abortion ban."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so she then was faced with the question of what was she going to do? And the only thing she could think to do then was to actually challenge the law. So she was put in contact with Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey, two young women who had recently graduated from law school. Sarah Weddington was only 26 years old at the time that she helped Norma McCorvey bring this case, but they decided to sue the state of Texas to challenge the constitutionality of Texas's criminal abortion ban. But as the history shows, there was no trial. There was no evidence. There were no expert witnesses."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Sarah Weddington was only 26 years old at the time that she helped Norma McCorvey bring this case, but they decided to sue the state of Texas to challenge the constitutionality of Texas's criminal abortion ban. But as the history shows, there was no trial. There was no evidence. There were no expert witnesses. Jane Roe never testified. As you know, she never got an abortion. She gave birth and placed her child for adoption."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There were no expert witnesses. Jane Roe never testified. As you know, she never got an abortion. She gave birth and placed her child for adoption. Okay, so Roe was Norma McCorvey. Who was Wade? Henry Wade was the district attorney for Dallas, Texas, where the case was filed in federal district court."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "She gave birth and placed her child for adoption. Okay, so Roe was Norma McCorvey. Who was Wade? Henry Wade was the district attorney for Dallas, Texas, where the case was filed in federal district court. So this case, I assume, kind of wends its way through the courts. And how did the Supreme Court rule? The justices declared the Texas and Georgia laws unconstitutional and then rewrote a national law, a national abortion law, in which they said that the states could not regulate or limit abortion in the first trimester."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Henry Wade was the district attorney for Dallas, Texas, where the case was filed in federal district court. So this case, I assume, kind of wends its way through the courts. And how did the Supreme Court rule? The justices declared the Texas and Georgia laws unconstitutional and then rewrote a national law, a national abortion law, in which they said that the states could not regulate or limit abortion in the first trimester. They could regulate more in the second trimester, the second three months of pregnancy to protect maternal health. And they could regulate in the last three months of pregnancy, the last trimester, to protect maternal health or fetal life. The attorneys for the plaintiffs claimed that abortion fell within the right to privacy, even though privacy is not in the text of the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The justices declared the Texas and Georgia laws unconstitutional and then rewrote a national law, a national abortion law, in which they said that the states could not regulate or limit abortion in the first trimester. They could regulate more in the second trimester, the second three months of pregnancy to protect maternal health. And they could regulate in the last three months of pregnancy, the last trimester, to protect maternal health or fetal life. The attorneys for the plaintiffs claimed that abortion fell within the right to privacy, even though privacy is not in the text of the Constitution. They said it was derived or based in the language of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, even though the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about abortion or the unborn child. It just uses the term liberty. And ultimately, the court said that the right to abortion was part of the right to privacy based on the 14th Amendment."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The attorneys for the plaintiffs claimed that abortion fell within the right to privacy, even though privacy is not in the text of the Constitution. They said it was derived or based in the language of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, even though the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about abortion or the unborn child. It just uses the term liberty. And ultimately, the court said that the right to abortion was part of the right to privacy based on the 14th Amendment. That's very interesting. So I've learned through many of these interviews that this right to privacy is something that is never actually explicitly stated throughout the Bill of Rights, but there's a penumbra of privacy that you see in a few ways. What was the court's reasoning that it was abortion that could fall under this zone of privacy?"}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And ultimately, the court said that the right to abortion was part of the right to privacy based on the 14th Amendment. That's very interesting. So I've learned through many of these interviews that this right to privacy is something that is never actually explicitly stated throughout the Bill of Rights, but there's a penumbra of privacy that you see in a few ways. What was the court's reasoning that it was abortion that could fall under this zone of privacy? If you read the Roe opinion, on page 152 of the Roe opinion, Justice Blackmun said that abortion is a right of privacy. Justice Blackmun starts out by saying that, he cites a string of cases since about 1910, a string of Supreme Court cases and says that these lead to the right of privacy, and we think abortion or that the right of privacy is broad enough to encompass abortion. But then four pages later on page 156, Blackmun turns around and says, but abortion, because it involves the taking of a life, is different from all those other cases that make up the right of privacy."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What was the court's reasoning that it was abortion that could fall under this zone of privacy? If you read the Roe opinion, on page 152 of the Roe opinion, Justice Blackmun said that abortion is a right of privacy. Justice Blackmun starts out by saying that, he cites a string of cases since about 1910, a string of Supreme Court cases and says that these lead to the right of privacy, and we think abortion or that the right of privacy is broad enough to encompass abortion. But then four pages later on page 156, Blackmun turns around and says, but abortion, because it involves the taking of a life, is different from all those other cases that make up the right of privacy. So the right of privacy doesn't actually come from Roe versus Wade, it comes from a case decided about eight years earlier in 1965 called Griswold versus Connecticut. In Griswold at issue was a Connecticut state statute that made it a crime to use contraception or even to counsel patients about contraception. Parenthood League of Connecticut opened up a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But then four pages later on page 156, Blackmun turns around and says, but abortion, because it involves the taking of a life, is different from all those other cases that make up the right of privacy. So the right of privacy doesn't actually come from Roe versus Wade, it comes from a case decided about eight years earlier in 1965 called Griswold versus Connecticut. In Griswold at issue was a Connecticut state statute that made it a crime to use contraception or even to counsel patients about contraception. Parenthood League of Connecticut opened up a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. They were promptly arrested and the clinic was closed and then they were able to bring this case. And they argued that the right to be able to use contraception was the right of the individual, the right of the doctor to advise patients about contraception was also an individual right. And the court in an opinion authored by William O. Douglas agrees with them."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Parenthood League of Connecticut opened up a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. They were promptly arrested and the clinic was closed and then they were able to bring this case. And they argued that the right to be able to use contraception was the right of the individual, the right of the doctor to advise patients about contraception was also an individual right. And the court in an opinion authored by William O. Douglas agrees with them. And the court articulates for the first time this right of privacy. And this is a right that the majority in Griswold says has actually been percolating in the court's decisions for some time. Did any of the justices dissent in the Roe decision?"}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the court in an opinion authored by William O. Douglas agrees with them. And the court articulates for the first time this right of privacy. And this is a right that the majority in Griswold says has actually been percolating in the court's decisions for some time. Did any of the justices dissent in the Roe decision? And if so, why? Well, there were two dissents by Justice White and by Justice Rehnquist. And Justice White said that the court was engaging in raw judicial power and that the justices did not have the right or the authority to strike down the abortion laws of the states and could not rely upon a doctrine called substantive due process."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Did any of the justices dissent in the Roe decision? And if so, why? Well, there were two dissents by Justice White and by Justice Rehnquist. And Justice White said that the court was engaging in raw judicial power and that the justices did not have the right or the authority to strike down the abortion laws of the states and could not rely upon a doctrine called substantive due process. Justice Rehnquist said that there is clear historical evidence that many states passed abortion limits and prohibitions precisely at the time of the framing of the 14th Amendment in the 1860s leading up to 1868 and that the evidentiary history, this history of state limits and prohibitions on abortion contradicted any proposition that the 14th Amendment was intended to include a right to abortion. And that was kind of the heart of his dissent. So Roe was not the last word on abortion in the United States."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Justice White said that the court was engaging in raw judicial power and that the justices did not have the right or the authority to strike down the abortion laws of the states and could not rely upon a doctrine called substantive due process. Justice Rehnquist said that there is clear historical evidence that many states passed abortion limits and prohibitions precisely at the time of the framing of the 14th Amendment in the 1860s leading up to 1868 and that the evidentiary history, this history of state limits and prohibitions on abortion contradicted any proposition that the 14th Amendment was intended to include a right to abortion. And that was kind of the heart of his dissent. So Roe was not the last word on abortion in the United States. There have been several later cases that were important to this as well, like Planned Parenthood versus Casey or Whole Women's Health versus Hellerstadt. Can you talk a little bit about how those cases have altered the scope of the right to abortion? As soon as Roe is decided in 1973, there is an effort to sort of roll it back and hem it in a little bit."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So Roe was not the last word on abortion in the United States. There have been several later cases that were important to this as well, like Planned Parenthood versus Casey or Whole Women's Health versus Hellerstadt. Can you talk a little bit about how those cases have altered the scope of the right to abortion? As soon as Roe is decided in 1973, there is an effort to sort of roll it back and hem it in a little bit. Frank Church, who's a senator from Idaho, announces the Church Amendment, which basically says that physicians don't have to perform abortions if doing so would conflict with their conscience or conscience beliefs. So again, that's one opportunity to sort of limit the reach of this right by limiting the number of providers who are available to offer abortions. In fact, the court has kind of cut back on Roe versus Wade in four cases over the years, Harris versus McCrae involving abortion funding, Planned Parenthood versus Casey, and in other cases, they've given more deference to the states, allowed the states to pass more and more limits, at least around the margins, even though they've continued the holding to the basic right that Roe created, that there is a right to abortion for virtually any reason at any time of pregnancy."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "As soon as Roe is decided in 1973, there is an effort to sort of roll it back and hem it in a little bit. Frank Church, who's a senator from Idaho, announces the Church Amendment, which basically says that physicians don't have to perform abortions if doing so would conflict with their conscience or conscience beliefs. So again, that's one opportunity to sort of limit the reach of this right by limiting the number of providers who are available to offer abortions. In fact, the court has kind of cut back on Roe versus Wade in four cases over the years, Harris versus McCrae involving abortion funding, Planned Parenthood versus Casey, and in other cases, they've given more deference to the states, allowed the states to pass more and more limits, at least around the margins, even though they've continued the holding to the basic right that Roe created, that there is a right to abortion for virtually any reason at any time of pregnancy. That's still the scope of the right, but they've allowed marginal regulations like limits on public funding, parental notice and consent, informed consent laws. But then the court flip-flopped in 2016, in June of 2016, in Whole Women's Health versus Hellerstadt. The case makes its way to the Supreme Court and in an opinion that's authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, and it's only an eight-person court because Justice Scalia passes away in February of 2016, so just eight people on the court."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, the court has kind of cut back on Roe versus Wade in four cases over the years, Harris versus McCrae involving abortion funding, Planned Parenthood versus Casey, and in other cases, they've given more deference to the states, allowed the states to pass more and more limits, at least around the margins, even though they've continued the holding to the basic right that Roe created, that there is a right to abortion for virtually any reason at any time of pregnancy. That's still the scope of the right, but they've allowed marginal regulations like limits on public funding, parental notice and consent, informed consent laws. But then the court flip-flopped in 2016, in June of 2016, in Whole Women's Health versus Hellerstadt. The case makes its way to the Supreme Court and in an opinion that's authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, and it's only an eight-person court because Justice Scalia passes away in February of 2016, so just eight people on the court. In this decision, that's a five-to-three decision, Justice Stephen Breyer notes that the provisions that were challenged do not offer the medical benefits that they claim to offer sufficient to justify the burdens on access that each of those provisions imposes. What do you see as the future of Roe versus Wade? Well, the court has failed as the National Abortion Control Board."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The case makes its way to the Supreme Court and in an opinion that's authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, and it's only an eight-person court because Justice Scalia passes away in February of 2016, so just eight people on the court. In this decision, that's a five-to-three decision, Justice Stephen Breyer notes that the provisions that were challenged do not offer the medical benefits that they claim to offer sufficient to justify the burdens on access that each of those provisions imposes. What do you see as the future of Roe versus Wade? Well, the court has failed as the National Abortion Control Board. It cannot monitor abortion. It can't intervene. It can't regulate or legislate itself."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the court has failed as the National Abortion Control Board. It cannot monitor abortion. It can't intervene. It can't regulate or legislate itself. It can't act as public health administrators. It can't investigate. And I believe it's absolutely certain that the court, sooner or later, will have to overturn the Roe versus Wade decision because of this failure and return the issue to the states."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It can't regulate or legislate itself. It can't act as public health administrators. It can't investigate. And I believe it's absolutely certain that the court, sooner or later, will have to overturn the Roe versus Wade decision because of this failure and return the issue to the states. When we are talking about repealing or reforming these laws in the 1960s and 70s, it's also around a social movement where one of the critical questions is what will be the role of women going forth in a modern society? When the questions of contraception come before the court, one of the questions is whether women will be allowed to choose when and how to have children, whether they can space the timing of births to accommodate careers. It's the same issue that comes up in abortion."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I believe it's absolutely certain that the court, sooner or later, will have to overturn the Roe versus Wade decision because of this failure and return the issue to the states. When we are talking about repealing or reforming these laws in the 1960s and 70s, it's also around a social movement where one of the critical questions is what will be the role of women going forth in a modern society? When the questions of contraception come before the court, one of the questions is whether women will be allowed to choose when and how to have children, whether they can space the timing of births to accommodate careers. It's the same issue that comes up in abortion. Like, this is allowing women freedom to be able to go into the workforce, to determine when and how they will become mothers. And so it's not surprising that the same questions that arose in the 19th century about the place of women, about what happens in a society that's undergoing change, whether it's immigration or changes in the demography of the country, are also coming up in the 1960s and 1970s at a time of incredible social change. And I think abortion and these rights involving a woman's role really do come to the fore and are incredibly controversial."}, {"video_title": "Roe v. Wade   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's the same issue that comes up in abortion. Like, this is allowing women freedom to be able to go into the workforce, to determine when and how they will become mothers. And so it's not surprising that the same questions that arose in the 19th century about the place of women, about what happens in a society that's undergoing change, whether it's immigration or changes in the demography of the country, are also coming up in the 1960s and 1970s at a time of incredible social change. And I think abortion and these rights involving a woman's role really do come to the fore and are incredibly controversial. So we've learned that the decision to legalize abortion in Roe versus Wade was based on the right of privacy, which the court has inferred from the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Since the Roe decision, a number of other cases have set limits on abortion and abortion clinics. Clark Forsyth argues that the Supreme Court has failed in regulating abortion and that the issue should be returned to the states."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When people refer to Social Security in the United States, they're really referring to the OASDI, which stands for Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance. And it is exactly what this acronym implies it is. It provides retirement benefits when someone retires, or if someone passes away before that, and they had paid into this Social Security insurance, this OASDI, and if they pass away, it will provide benefits for their survivors. Or if that person doesn't pass away but becomes disabled and can't work anymore, it will also provide benefits for them. Now one very, very common misconception with Social Security is that it is somehow a form of a retirement savings account, like a 401k or an IRA. It is not that. From the government's point of view, they actually view it more as a kind of insurance, but in reality, all it is is a way of current workers to directly pay for the retirement of existing retirees."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or if that person doesn't pass away but becomes disabled and can't work anymore, it will also provide benefits for them. Now one very, very common misconception with Social Security is that it is somehow a form of a retirement savings account, like a 401k or an IRA. It is not that. From the government's point of view, they actually view it more as a kind of insurance, but in reality, all it is is a way of current workers to directly pay for the retirement of existing retirees. And the reason why they did this is when it started off in 1935, they wanted the current retirees to immediately get benefits. They didn't want to wait for the current generation to save enough money and only use their money, so they made it a kind of a direct transfer from the current workers to the people who are using the benefits. And just to make the point clear, a traditional retirement account, so let's say that this is me over my career, and then I retire, and this is me after I retire, and so this is as I get older."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "From the government's point of view, they actually view it more as a kind of insurance, but in reality, all it is is a way of current workers to directly pay for the retirement of existing retirees. And the reason why they did this is when it started off in 1935, they wanted the current retirees to immediately get benefits. They didn't want to wait for the current generation to save enough money and only use their money, so they made it a kind of a direct transfer from the current workers to the people who are using the benefits. And just to make the point clear, a traditional retirement account, so let's say that this is me over my career, and then I retire, and this is me after I retire, and so this is as I get older. So this is I'm aging as we go to the right. So during my working years, in a traditional retirement plan, I would be putting money into some account someplace. And so this would be the case of an IRA or a 401k, and so this is an account someplace."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And just to make the point clear, a traditional retirement account, so let's say that this is me over my career, and then I retire, and this is me after I retire, and so this is as I get older. So this is I'm aging as we go to the right. So during my working years, in a traditional retirement plan, I would be putting money into some account someplace. And so this would be the case of an IRA or a 401k, and so this is an account someplace. And with the cases of IRAs and 401ks, they're tax deferred, and you can invest this, and you can get some, you invest it and you can get some interest on it so it can grow as you invest, as you put more and more money into it, and you invest it well. And then once you retire, that money, that money that you directly placed there will be used to fund your retirement. That money will be used to fund your retirement."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so this would be the case of an IRA or a 401k, and so this is an account someplace. And with the cases of IRAs and 401ks, they're tax deferred, and you can invest this, and you can get some, you invest it and you can get some interest on it so it can grow as you invest, as you put more and more money into it, and you invest it well. And then once you retire, that money, that money that you directly placed there will be used to fund your retirement. That money will be used to fund your retirement. Social security is not this. When you pay the FICA tax, and we'll talk about that in more detail in future videos, when you pay that tax, you are actually not putting it into a little separate account that you will then tap into later. You are actually, for the most part, paying current retirees or survivors or people with disabilities."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That money will be used to fund your retirement. Social security is not this. When you pay the FICA tax, and we'll talk about that in more detail in future videos, when you pay that tax, you are actually not putting it into a little separate account that you will then tap into later. You are actually, for the most part, paying current retirees or survivors or people with disabilities. You're paying their benefits. So the way social security works is more like this. You have all of the current workers paying their FICA taxes."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You are actually, for the most part, paying current retirees or survivors or people with disabilities. You're paying their benefits. So the way social security works is more like this. You have all of the current workers paying their FICA taxes. You have all of the current workers paying their FICA taxes, and right now, or at least I think these numbers are as of 2010, you have 157 million people paying into social security, and you have 54 million people receiving social security. And you have 54 million people receiving social security. And so this ratio is pretty good."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have all of the current workers paying their FICA taxes. You have all of the current workers paying their FICA taxes, and right now, or at least I think these numbers are as of 2010, you have 157 million people paying into social security, and you have 54 million people receiving social security. And you have 54 million people receiving social security. And so this ratio is pretty good. This money is right now, as of 2010, 2011, it's enough money to pay for all of these benefits, and actually we are running a little bit of a surplus. And that surplus is put into a separate trust account. And it's normally informally called the Social Security Trust, or the more formal name is the OASDI Trust."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so this ratio is pretty good. This money is right now, as of 2010, 2011, it's enough money to pay for all of these benefits, and actually we are running a little bit of a surplus. And that surplus is put into a separate trust account. And it's normally informally called the Social Security Trust, or the more formal name is the OASDI Trust. But I'll just call it the Social Security Trust. And the idea behind this is, okay, look, we're running a surplus now. We can cover at least all of our current obligations, and we have a surplus."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's normally informally called the Social Security Trust, or the more formal name is the OASDI Trust. But I'll just call it the Social Security Trust. And the idea behind this is, okay, look, we're running a surplus now. We can cover at least all of our current obligations, and we have a surplus. And then as more baby boomers retire and more people go from this side of the equation to this side of the equation, then we can use the trust to kind of make up any deficits we might have. Because as we have more people on the right, we're going to have to spend more, and we're going to have fewer people on the left, so we're going to have less coming in. But look, we had all that saved up surplus before, and so we can use that."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We can cover at least all of our current obligations, and we have a surplus. And then as more baby boomers retire and more people go from this side of the equation to this side of the equation, then we can use the trust to kind of make up any deficits we might have. Because as we have more people on the right, we're going to have to spend more, and we're going to have fewer people on the left, so we're going to have less coming in. But look, we had all that saved up surplus before, and so we can use that. And that might sound like overall a decent idea, but the problem is that this trust is going to start shrinking because of all the retiring of the baby boomers. It starts shrinking, and we estimate 2023, and these things move around based on how much benefits the retirees get, the economy, how many people are paying into it, and a whole other bunch of assumptions. But we estimate it's going to start shrinking in roughly a decade from now."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But look, we had all that saved up surplus before, and so we can use that. And that might sound like overall a decent idea, but the problem is that this trust is going to start shrinking because of all the retiring of the baby boomers. It starts shrinking, and we estimate 2023, and these things move around based on how much benefits the retirees get, the economy, how many people are paying into it, and a whole other bunch of assumptions. But we estimate it's going to start shrinking in roughly a decade from now. And the really bad thing is this thing will be completely depleted. This will be depleted, so it won't be able to provide that extra funding for this deficit, not having enough money to pay for all the retirees. It will be completely depleted sometime between 2030 or 2040."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But we estimate it's going to start shrinking in roughly a decade from now. And the really bad thing is this thing will be completely depleted. This will be depleted, so it won't be able to provide that extra funding for this deficit, not having enough money to pay for all the retirees. It will be completely depleted sometime between 2030 or 2040. And once again, this is a good ways out, so it's based on a lot of assumptions, but it's not that far out this is actually going to affect. Let's see, I'm right now 35 in 2011, so in 2031 I'll be 55. So this will essentially affect my retirement."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It will be completely depleted sometime between 2030 or 2040. And once again, this is a good ways out, so it's based on a lot of assumptions, but it's not that far out this is actually going to affect. Let's see, I'm right now 35 in 2011, so in 2031 I'll be 55. So this will essentially affect my retirement. By the time I retire in, I don't know, 20, hopefully I'm around 2042, actually I'll probably have to be 67, so I'll have, what is that, 2045, or whenever I'm going to retire. Based on the current taxes that are coming in, the current level of the Social Security Trust, the interest that the Social Security Trust is getting on its invested money, and it's all being invested in Treasury securities, so it's invested in Treasury, so it's not getting crazy interest. It's getting only a few percentage points per year, but it has to because it has to be invested in a very safe place."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this will essentially affect my retirement. By the time I retire in, I don't know, 20, hopefully I'm around 2042, actually I'll probably have to be 67, so I'll have, what is that, 2045, or whenever I'm going to retire. Based on the current taxes that are coming in, the current level of the Social Security Trust, the interest that the Social Security Trust is getting on its invested money, and it's all being invested in Treasury securities, so it's invested in Treasury, so it's not getting crazy interest. It's getting only a few percentage points per year, but it has to because it has to be invested in a very safe place. So given this, there are three possible eventualities. Either the FICA tax goes up, so based on the number of people working here, you get more revenue per person right over here. Eventuality number two is the benefits go down or even possibly disappear."}, {"video_title": "Social security intro   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's getting only a few percentage points per year, but it has to because it has to be invested in a very safe place. So given this, there are three possible eventualities. Either the FICA tax goes up, so based on the number of people working here, you get more revenue per person right over here. Eventuality number two is the benefits go down or even possibly disappear. The benefits go down. And eventuality three is by this time frame right over here, that other parts of the government's budget is going to have to fund Social Security to make up the shortfall because you don't have enough revenue coming from the FICA tax and you don't have enough money from the Social Security Trust. So other parts of the budget."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In other videos, we have talked about how ratification of the US Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation was not a slam dunk. After the Constitution was drafted during the Constitutional Convention in mid-1787, you actually have a significant group of people who are against the ratification, and we study some of their writings in another video on the anti-federalist papers, in particular on Brutus I, which is the most prominent of them. In this video, we're gonna focus on the other side, on the folks who are aggressively advocating for ratification of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay were some of the most prominent of these, and they were the ones that wrote the Federalist Papers that were focused on convincing everyone to adopt the Constitution. And what we're going to look at in this video is perhaps the most famous of the Federalist Papers. This is Federalist Number 10, or at least an excerpt of Federalist Number 10 that we're gonna look at right over here. It was published November 23rd, 1787, and if you remember the video on Brutus I, this is only a few weeks after Brutus I, which is now considered a famous anti-federalist paper, was published."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay were some of the most prominent of these, and they were the ones that wrote the Federalist Papers that were focused on convincing everyone to adopt the Constitution. And what we're going to look at in this video is perhaps the most famous of the Federalist Papers. This is Federalist Number 10, or at least an excerpt of Federalist Number 10 that we're gonna look at right over here. It was published November 23rd, 1787, and if you remember the video on Brutus I, this is only a few weeks after Brutus I, which is now considered a famous anti-federalist paper, was published. So it's right in this time period right over here where people are going back and forth deciding, do we ratify this Constitution? And James Madison published under the pen name Publius, and Publius is making reference to one of the ancient Roman aristocrats who overthrew the Roman kingdom in the late 6th century to establish the Roman Republic. So one way to think about it is, he is viewing himself and the other Federalists as trying to establish a strong Republic."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It was published November 23rd, 1787, and if you remember the video on Brutus I, this is only a few weeks after Brutus I, which is now considered a famous anti-federalist paper, was published. So it's right in this time period right over here where people are going back and forth deciding, do we ratify this Constitution? And James Madison published under the pen name Publius, and Publius is making reference to one of the ancient Roman aristocrats who overthrew the Roman kingdom in the late 6th century to establish the Roman Republic. So one way to think about it is, he is viewing himself and the other Federalists as trying to establish a strong Republic. This is in comparison to Brutus, which we see as the pen name for some of the significant anti-Federalist papers, and Brutus played a significant role in the assassination of Julius Caesar to keep him from corrupting the Republic, ending the Republic, and turning it into an empire. But now let's read this excerpt of Federalist Number 10, and as I read this, keep in mind some of these ideas, these flavors of democracy that we have talked about in other videos. Does Madison in Federalist Number 10, does he seem pro-participatory democracy or anti-participatory democracy?"}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So one way to think about it is, he is viewing himself and the other Federalists as trying to establish a strong Republic. This is in comparison to Brutus, which we see as the pen name for some of the significant anti-Federalist papers, and Brutus played a significant role in the assassination of Julius Caesar to keep him from corrupting the Republic, ending the Republic, and turning it into an empire. But now let's read this excerpt of Federalist Number 10, and as I read this, keep in mind some of these ideas, these flavors of democracy that we have talked about in other videos. Does Madison in Federalist Number 10, does he seem pro-participatory democracy or anti-participatory democracy? Does he seem to think that pluralism is a good idea or a bad idea? And is he more pro-elite democracy or anti-elites running a democracy? To the people of the state of New York, and like Brutus I, it's addressed to the people of the state of New York because, one, New York was a significant state, and he's trying to convince them, in this case, to support the US Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Does Madison in Federalist Number 10, does he seem pro-participatory democracy or anti-participatory democracy? Does he seem to think that pluralism is a good idea or a bad idea? And is he more pro-elite democracy or anti-elites running a democracy? To the people of the state of New York, and like Brutus I, it's addressed to the people of the state of New York because, one, New York was a significant state, and he's trying to convince them, in this case, to support the US Constitution. Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. So a well-constructed union needs to be able to control the violence of a faction. In fact, this is in the title."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To the people of the state of New York, and like Brutus I, it's addressed to the people of the state of New York because, one, New York was a significant state, and he's trying to convince them, in this case, to support the US Constitution. Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. So a well-constructed union needs to be able to control the violence of a faction. In fact, this is in the title. The union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considered and virtuous citizens that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. So already outlining some of the problems, this problem of faction, this problem of majority rule overrunning minorities or the rights of the minorities."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, this is in the title. The union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considered and virtuous citizens that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. So already outlining some of the problems, this problem of faction, this problem of majority rule overrunning minorities or the rights of the minorities. It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, the clashing interests of faction, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. It may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So already outlining some of the problems, this problem of faction, this problem of majority rule overrunning minorities or the rights of the minorities. It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, the clashing interests of faction, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. It may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. So a pure democracy, which is about as close as you can get to a participatory democracy, Madison here is claiming that it can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction, that it doesn't really help the situation. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence, it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of people, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their debts."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. So a pure democracy, which is about as close as you can get to a participatory democracy, Madison here is claiming that it can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction, that it doesn't really help the situation. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence, it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of people, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their debts. So what does Madison think of participatory democracies? Right, he doesn't think too highly of them. He says, look, a majority is going to take over, and they're going to trample over the rights of everyone else."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Hence, it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of people, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their debts. So what does Madison think of participatory democracies? Right, he doesn't think too highly of them. He says, look, a majority is going to take over, and they're going to trample over the rights of everyone else. So clearly he thinks that a participatory democracy, not, not good. A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking. So in his definition of republic, it's a situation where you have the people being represented by others."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He says, look, a majority is going to take over, and they're going to trample over the rights of everyone else. So clearly he thinks that a participatory democracy, not, not good. A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking. So in his definition of republic, it's a situation where you have the people being represented by others. The two great points of difference between a democracy or a pure democracy and a republic are, first, the delegation of the government in the latter to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. So he's saying in a republic, you're delegating the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. Secondly, the greater number of citizens and the greater sphere of country over which the latter, the republic, may be extended."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in his definition of republic, it's a situation where you have the people being represented by others. The two great points of difference between a democracy or a pure democracy and a republic are, first, the delegation of the government in the latter to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. So he's saying in a republic, you're delegating the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. Secondly, the greater number of citizens and the greater sphere of country over which the latter, the republic, may be extended. So this is interesting because in Brutus One, the argument is made that republics aren't good at ruling over large territories. Here Madison is claiming that a republic is better at ruling over a greater sphere of country, over a greater number of citizens. The effect of the first difference, and so this is the notion of having these representatives, having a representative democracy, is to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interests of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Secondly, the greater number of citizens and the greater sphere of country over which the latter, the republic, may be extended. So this is interesting because in Brutus One, the argument is made that republics aren't good at ruling over large territories. Here Madison is claiming that a republic is better at ruling over a greater sphere of country, over a greater number of citizens. The effect of the first difference, and so this is the notion of having these representatives, having a representative democracy, is to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interests of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves. So this is really, really interesting because we already saw that Madison's not a fan of participatory democracy, and here he's saying, look, if you take the views and pass them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, that these people might represent the public good better than the people themselves. This is really Madison being very pro-elite democracy, where you have a limited number of people who are really participating, and he's making the argument that they might be better at representing the needs of the people than the people themselves."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The effect of the first difference, and so this is the notion of having these representatives, having a representative democracy, is to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interests of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves. So this is really, really interesting because we already saw that Madison's not a fan of participatory democracy, and here he's saying, look, if you take the views and pass them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, that these people might represent the public good better than the people themselves. This is really Madison being very pro-elite democracy, where you have a limited number of people who are really participating, and he's making the argument that they might be better at representing the needs of the people than the people themselves. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. So he is giving some credence to the other side of the argument. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs made by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means first obtain the suffrages and then betray the interests of the people."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is really Madison being very pro-elite democracy, where you have a limited number of people who are really participating, and he's making the argument that they might be better at representing the needs of the people than the people themselves. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. So he is giving some credence to the other side of the argument. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs made by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means first obtain the suffrages and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public wheel, and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter, so large republics, by two obvious considerations. In the first place, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number in order to guard against the cabals of a few, and that however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. So this is really interesting."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs made by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means first obtain the suffrages and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public wheel, and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter, so large republics, by two obvious considerations. In the first place, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number in order to guard against the cabals of a few, and that however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. So this is really interesting. He says, look, no matter how large your republic, you're going to need a certain number of representatives. If you have too small, then they're just going to be able to control everything, but if you have too many representatives, it's just going to be confusing. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, you're not gonna keep the same proportion depending on population, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice."}, {"video_title": "Federalist No. 10 (part 1)   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is really interesting. He says, look, no matter how large your republic, you're going to need a certain number of representatives. If you have too small, then they're just going to be able to control everything, but if you have too many representatives, it's just going to be confusing. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, you're not gonna keep the same proportion depending on population, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice. So what he's really saying is in a large republic, you're more likely to find fit and good representatives than you will in a small republic. Once again, he wants people who he considers to be elite in some way, the more educated, whatever you might consider elite to be. For the sake of time, I'll leave you there in this part one video, and in part two, we'll see James Madison continue to argue not only for a republic, but for a large republic, which the US Constitution provides for, arguing that you'll have better people representing in government, and you will also have a more pluralist society, which we'll see is very different than the view of the anti-federalists."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then you have the party committees that will try to influence the election, and we'll talk about how in a little bit. You have individuals who, besides being voters, can also be donors. And then you have organizations. It could be corporations, it could be interest groups, it could be labor unions. And then last but not least, we have these two boxes where you see PAC 1 and PAC 2. And so the obvious question is, what is a PAC? Well, it stands for Political Action Committee, and they've been around for decades."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It could be corporations, it could be interest groups, it could be labor unions. And then last but not least, we have these two boxes where you see PAC 1 and PAC 2. And so the obvious question is, what is a PAC? Well, it stands for Political Action Committee, and they've been around for decades. And a simple way to think about it is it's a way to pool resources, which then can be donated to other parties to influence an election. But how can the money actually flow? Well, as you can see, it can flow in many, many, many different ways."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, it stands for Political Action Committee, and they've been around for decades. And a simple way to think about it is it's a way to pool resources, which then can be donated to other parties to influence an election. But how can the money actually flow? Well, as you can see, it can flow in many, many, many different ways. And to help us understand this, I'm gonna introduce some terminology that you might have heard before. There is hard money. And hard money is money that is actually regulated by the Federal Election Committee, and there are caps in terms of how much people can donate to various parties."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, as you can see, it can flow in many, many, many different ways. And to help us understand this, I'm gonna introduce some terminology that you might have heard before. There is hard money. And hard money is money that is actually regulated by the Federal Election Committee, and there are caps in terms of how much people can donate to various parties. In general, any donation to a candidate's campaign is considered hard money. So that would be hard money there coming from the individuals. This would be hard money right over here coming from that PAC, which has pooled a bunch of money."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And hard money is money that is actually regulated by the Federal Election Committee, and there are caps in terms of how much people can donate to various parties. In general, any donation to a candidate's campaign is considered hard money. So that would be hard money there coming from the individuals. This would be hard money right over here coming from that PAC, which has pooled a bunch of money. This would be hard money right over here coming from that PAC to Donald Trump's campaign. This would be hard money coming from the Democratic Party to Hillary Clinton's campaign, or from the Republican Party to Donald Trump's campaign. If there's something called hard money, perhaps there's also something called soft money."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This would be hard money right over here coming from that PAC, which has pooled a bunch of money. This would be hard money right over here coming from that PAC to Donald Trump's campaign. This would be hard money coming from the Democratic Party to Hillary Clinton's campaign, or from the Republican Party to Donald Trump's campaign. If there's something called hard money, perhaps there's also something called soft money. And you would be correct. There is something called soft money. A simple definition for soft money is it doesn't have the regulations that hard money does."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If there's something called hard money, perhaps there's also something called soft money. And you would be correct. There is something called soft money. A simple definition for soft money is it doesn't have the regulations that hard money does. And so an example of it would be, let's say the Democratic Party here, some of the money that they spend, so I'll just draw some of the money they spend, this part right over here, or maybe some of the money that the Republican Party spends during the election, it's used for what's sometimes known as party-building activities to get more people to join their party or to advertise about certain issues. And as long as it's done not in coordination with the candidate's campaigns, this is not going to have any limit. And so some of the money that goes from an individual to a party, or some of the money that goes from a PAC to a party can also be considered soft money if, once again, if it keeps separate from coordinating with a candidate's actual campaign and used for those party-building activities."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A simple definition for soft money is it doesn't have the regulations that hard money does. And so an example of it would be, let's say the Democratic Party here, some of the money that they spend, so I'll just draw some of the money they spend, this part right over here, or maybe some of the money that the Republican Party spends during the election, it's used for what's sometimes known as party-building activities to get more people to join their party or to advertise about certain issues. And as long as it's done not in coordination with the candidate's campaigns, this is not going to have any limit. And so some of the money that goes from an individual to a party, or some of the money that goes from a PAC to a party can also be considered soft money if, once again, if it keeps separate from coordinating with a candidate's actual campaign and used for those party-building activities. Now, party-building is a pretty broad definition. And soft money has been demonized a lot because people say, well, it's just a way of getting around campaign finance regulations because even though it might not be directly coordinated with a candidate's campaign, it can influence an election in a pretty significant way. Now, to further understand this diagram, you see these dotted lines between the corporations or the labor unions and these political action committees."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so some of the money that goes from an individual to a party, or some of the money that goes from a PAC to a party can also be considered soft money if, once again, if it keeps separate from coordinating with a candidate's actual campaign and used for those party-building activities. Now, party-building is a pretty broad definition. And soft money has been demonized a lot because people say, well, it's just a way of getting around campaign finance regulations because even though it might not be directly coordinated with a candidate's campaign, it can influence an election in a pretty significant way. Now, to further understand this diagram, you see these dotted lines between the corporations or the labor unions and these political action committees. What does that mean? Well, a political action committee can be connected or sponsored by a corporation or a labor union, but it cannot receive funds directly from the treasury of that corporation or labor union. But the corporation can sponsor it, can say, hey, this is associated with us, and it can, if it's, say, a labor union, it can go to its membership and say, hey, I want you to donate to this PAC."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, to further understand this diagram, you see these dotted lines between the corporations or the labor unions and these political action committees. What does that mean? Well, a political action committee can be connected or sponsored by a corporation or a labor union, but it cannot receive funds directly from the treasury of that corporation or labor union. But the corporation can sponsor it, can say, hey, this is associated with us, and it can, if it's, say, a labor union, it can go to its membership and say, hey, I want you to donate to this PAC. If it's a corporation, it can go to its management team and say, hey, let's all donate to this PAC personally. Or it could go to its shareholders and say, hey, why don't we all donate to this PAC? Because this PAC can donate money to the party or the candidate that might help influence the election in a way that might benefit us or benefit the corporation."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the corporation can sponsor it, can say, hey, this is associated with us, and it can, if it's, say, a labor union, it can go to its membership and say, hey, I want you to donate to this PAC. If it's a corporation, it can go to its management team and say, hey, let's all donate to this PAC personally. Or it could go to its shareholders and say, hey, why don't we all donate to this PAC? Because this PAC can donate money to the party or the candidate that might help influence the election in a way that might benefit us or benefit the corporation. Now, an attempt to limit soft money came in 2002 when you have the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often known as McCain-Feingold, who are the two sponsors in the Senate. Among other things, it tried to limit this soft money. After this act, even this party spending would have to be hard money."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Because this PAC can donate money to the party or the candidate that might help influence the election in a way that might benefit us or benefit the corporation. Now, an attempt to limit soft money came in 2002 when you have the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often known as McCain-Feingold, who are the two sponsors in the Senate. Among other things, it tried to limit this soft money. After this act, even this party spending would have to be hard money. It would have to be subjected to the caps when they are raising that money. It also made clear that corporations and labor unions couldn't participate in what's called electioneering activities, where they're spending money on, say, issue-based ads with oftentimes the intent of influencing the election, especially in the run-up to the election. So this was made explicitly illegal as well."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "After this act, even this party spending would have to be hard money. It would have to be subjected to the caps when they are raising that money. It also made clear that corporations and labor unions couldn't participate in what's called electioneering activities, where they're spending money on, say, issue-based ads with oftentimes the intent of influencing the election, especially in the run-up to the election. So this was made explicitly illegal as well. But this gets challenged in 2010, where you have this major case, Citizens United versus the Federal Election Committee. Citizens United was an organization that was releasing a movie called Hillary the Movie during the 2008 election. And this was a movie that was pretty negative on Hillary Clinton."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this was made explicitly illegal as well. But this gets challenged in 2010, where you have this major case, Citizens United versus the Federal Election Committee. Citizens United was an organization that was releasing a movie called Hillary the Movie during the 2008 election. And this was a movie that was pretty negative on Hillary Clinton. And so the argument of the government was that hey, even though this looks like a movie, it's really political advertising. It's electioneering as we go into the run-up to an election. And so Citizens United, which is a nonprofit corporation, should not be able to do this."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this was a movie that was pretty negative on Hillary Clinton. And so the argument of the government was that hey, even though this looks like a movie, it's really political advertising. It's electioneering as we go into the run-up to an election. And so Citizens United, which is a nonprofit corporation, should not be able to do this. But the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United's favor. They said as long as they are not coordinating with the actual candidates' campaigns, they are allowed, based on the notion of free speech, to directly participate in electioneering in the run-up to an election. And to a large degree, the Citizens United ruling from 2010 really gutted the strength of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so Citizens United, which is a nonprofit corporation, should not be able to do this. But the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United's favor. They said as long as they are not coordinating with the actual candidates' campaigns, they are allowed, based on the notion of free speech, to directly participate in electioneering in the run-up to an election. And to a large degree, the Citizens United ruling from 2010 really gutted the strength of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That act was trying to curtail soft money that for the most part was going through parties. But now, post-Citizens United, on both sides, folks started to say, gee, I could start an organization that pulls money, let's call that a PAC, but I'm gonna keep it independent. It's not going to coordinate in any other way with the elections of the individual candidates."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And to a large degree, the Citizens United ruling from 2010 really gutted the strength of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That act was trying to curtail soft money that for the most part was going through parties. But now, post-Citizens United, on both sides, folks started to say, gee, I could start an organization that pulls money, let's call that a PAC, but I'm gonna keep it independent. It's not going to coordinate in any other way with the elections of the individual candidates. And so this is often referred to technically as an independent expenditure PAC. And here, post-Citizens United, I can get unlimited, unlimited funding from corporations or from individuals that is not regulated in terms of spending caps, and now I can spend an unlimited amount of money on electioneering to try to influence the campaign. And because of the power of these types of independent expenditure PACs, they have been termed super PACs."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's not going to coordinate in any other way with the elections of the individual candidates. And so this is often referred to technically as an independent expenditure PAC. And here, post-Citizens United, I can get unlimited, unlimited funding from corporations or from individuals that is not regulated in terms of spending caps, and now I can spend an unlimited amount of money on electioneering to try to influence the campaign. And because of the power of these types of independent expenditure PACs, they have been termed super PACs. Now, the key difference between a super PAC and a regular PAC is that the regular PACs that we talked about have limitations in terms of how much money people can donate to them. They actually even can't take direct money from the treasuries of a corporation or a labor union. They also had limitations in terms of how much they could donate to an individual campaign."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And because of the power of these types of independent expenditure PACs, they have been termed super PACs. Now, the key difference between a super PAC and a regular PAC is that the regular PACs that we talked about have limitations in terms of how much money people can donate to them. They actually even can't take direct money from the treasuries of a corporation or a labor union. They also had limitations in terms of how much they could donate to an individual campaign. But they could donate to a campaign. A super PAC, on the other hand, can take unlimited amounts of funds from individuals, from other PACs, and it could actually take money from corporate treasuries themselves. And as long as they are independent of the candidates' campaigns, they don't coordinate with them, they can spend as much money as they would like."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They also had limitations in terms of how much they could donate to an individual campaign. But they could donate to a campaign. A super PAC, on the other hand, can take unlimited amounts of funds from individuals, from other PACs, and it could actually take money from corporate treasuries themselves. And as long as they are independent of the candidates' campaigns, they don't coordinate with them, they can spend as much money as they would like. So as always, it's really interesting to think about what is going to be the eventual repercussions of Citizens United versus FEC. We've already seen in the 2016 elections money approaching a billion dollars in terms of super PAC money. What is the influence that has on the democracy?"}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And as long as they are independent of the candidates' campaigns, they don't coordinate with them, they can spend as much money as they would like. So as always, it's really interesting to think about what is going to be the eventual repercussions of Citizens United versus FEC. We've already seen in the 2016 elections money approaching a billion dollars in terms of super PAC money. What is the influence that has on the democracy? But a lot of folks might immediately demonize a super PAC and said, hey, money was already in politics, and this is just making it worse, where now you have corporations that are essentially being able to directly contribute large amounts of money. We've always had issues with foreign nationals contributing to our elections. We've always tried to prevent that."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What is the influence that has on the democracy? But a lot of folks might immediately demonize a super PAC and said, hey, money was already in politics, and this is just making it worse, where now you have corporations that are essentially being able to directly contribute large amounts of money. We've always had issues with foreign nationals contributing to our elections. We've always tried to prevent that. But a corporation can have ownership from around the world, even if it's a United States-based corporation. How do you prevent foreign interest from showing up through this money? But on the other hand, I encourage you to read the Supreme Court's rulings, because they had some very strong arguments in terms of a slippery slope."}, {"video_title": "Campaign finance   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We've always tried to prevent that. But a corporation can have ownership from around the world, even if it's a United States-based corporation. How do you prevent foreign interest from showing up through this money? But on the other hand, I encourage you to read the Supreme Court's rulings, because they had some very strong arguments in terms of a slippery slope. If you don't allow Citizens United to publish a movie saying that it's electioneering, at what point is something a political organization or a media organization? And the Supreme Court found it very difficult to regulate Citizens United without going down a slippery slope where they would have to regulate a whole set of corporations and media. I'll let you think about it, but these questions are quite interesting."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "It'll also inform our thoughts on government as it is today in the United States. What flavor of democracy does it take on, especially at different layers of government? So just as a review, and this is something that we have talked about in other videos, democracy comes from Greek, from rule by the people. Demo from demos, which is referring to people. And krasi coming from kratia, which is referring to rule. So rule by the people. Now broadly speaking, we can think of three general flavors of democracy."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Demo from demos, which is referring to people. And krasi coming from kratia, which is referring to rule. So rule by the people. Now broadly speaking, we can think of three general flavors of democracy. The first we can consider to be participatory, participatory, participatory democracy. The second we can call pluralist democracy. And I'll define these in a second."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Now broadly speaking, we can think of three general flavors of democracy. The first we can consider to be participatory, participatory, participatory democracy. The second we can call pluralist democracy. And I'll define these in a second. And then the third, let's call that elite democracy. Elite democracy. Now what do you think participatory democracy means based on the word participatory?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "And I'll define these in a second. And then the third, let's call that elite democracy. Elite democracy. Now what do you think participatory democracy means based on the word participatory? Yes, as you might have guessed, it implies broad participation of the population. Broad participation. What are examples of a participatory democracy?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Now what do you think participatory democracy means based on the word participatory? Yes, as you might have guessed, it implies broad participation of the population. Broad participation. What are examples of a participatory democracy? Well, imagine a small town that has maybe a few hundred or a few thousand people. And if there's an issue of whether to build a stoplight at an intersection or change some of the zoning laws, you can imagine a large chunk of the town showing up to weigh in on that decision. Now what are some of the benefits of a participatory democracy and what are some of the negatives?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "What are examples of a participatory democracy? Well, imagine a small town that has maybe a few hundred or a few thousand people. And if there's an issue of whether to build a stoplight at an intersection or change some of the zoning laws, you can imagine a large chunk of the town showing up to weigh in on that decision. Now what are some of the benefits of a participatory democracy and what are some of the negatives? Well, the benefits are, and I'll do those as pluses, a benefit is, well, it kind of seems closest to the original spirit of a democracy. It's coming out of ancient Greece, ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy, where you did have residents go together and debate the major issues. Although even in ancient Athens, you have to take participation with a grain of salt because it wasn't everyone who was participating."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Now what are some of the benefits of a participatory democracy and what are some of the negatives? Well, the benefits are, and I'll do those as pluses, a benefit is, well, it kind of seems closest to the original spirit of a democracy. It's coming out of ancient Greece, ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy, where you did have residents go together and debate the major issues. Although even in ancient Athens, you have to take participation with a grain of salt because it wasn't everyone who was participating. It was for the most part wealthy men who had the time to actually sit and debate these issues. But if we wanna give a participatory democracy its credit, say in a small town, is that you really are representing the views of the people, representing the people well. The people are directly involved."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Although even in ancient Athens, you have to take participation with a grain of salt because it wasn't everyone who was participating. It was for the most part wealthy men who had the time to actually sit and debate these issues. But if we wanna give a participatory democracy its credit, say in a small town, is that you really are representing the views of the people, representing the people well. The people are directly involved. Now what are maybe some of the negatives? Well, it can get logistically difficult. We talked about a small town, but what if the town gets a little bit bigger?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "The people are directly involved. Now what are maybe some of the negatives? Well, it can get logistically difficult. We talked about a small town, but what if the town gets a little bit bigger? Or what if we're dealing with a state or we're dealing with a country where we're talking about tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions or tens of millions of people? How do you get all of those people to weigh in on an issue, even logistically? How do they get informed about it?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "We talked about a small town, but what if the town gets a little bit bigger? Or what if we're dealing with a state or we're dealing with a country where we're talking about tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions or tens of millions of people? How do you get all of those people to weigh in on an issue, even logistically? How do they get informed about it? And are they even prepared to weigh in on those issues? Sure, if you're in a town, you can think about whether an intersection should be there or whether they should put a stoplight there. But if we're talking about matters of national or international importance, influencing hundreds of millions of people, can you depend on people to be informed about the intricacies of the banking system or the military or foreign policy?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "How do they get informed about it? And are they even prepared to weigh in on those issues? Sure, if you're in a town, you can think about whether an intersection should be there or whether they should put a stoplight there. But if we're talking about matters of national or international importance, influencing hundreds of millions of people, can you depend on people to be informed about the intricacies of the banking system or the military or foreign policy? And so this is really a question of does this scale? And there really aren't any good examples in history of direct democracy scaling in significant ways beyond fairly small groups of people. In the United States, the biggest scale where you might see this are in things like ballot measures at the city or the state level where people are directly voting on certain measures or certain laws."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "But if we're talking about matters of national or international importance, influencing hundreds of millions of people, can you depend on people to be informed about the intricacies of the banking system or the military or foreign policy? And so this is really a question of does this scale? And there really aren't any good examples in history of direct democracy scaling in significant ways beyond fairly small groups of people. In the United States, the biggest scale where you might see this are in things like ballot measures at the city or the state level where people are directly voting on certain measures or certain laws. But even there, it's a limited scope for what the people will actually weigh in on. Now, the next category that we talk about is a pluralist democracy. Pluralism is referring to the idea of many different parties same root as the word plural."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "In the United States, the biggest scale where you might see this are in things like ballot measures at the city or the state level where people are directly voting on certain measures or certain laws. But even there, it's a limited scope for what the people will actually weigh in on. Now, the next category that we talk about is a pluralist democracy. Pluralism is referring to the idea of many different parties same root as the word plural. You have many things. So you have many different parties and many different competing interests that are going to have a vigorous debate with each other on deciding what are the best ideas. And what are examples of pluralist democracies?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Pluralism is referring to the idea of many different parties same root as the word plural. You have many things. So you have many different parties and many different competing interests that are going to have a vigorous debate with each other on deciding what are the best ideas. And what are examples of pluralist democracies? If you think about the United States, there are many different interest groups. You could think about all of the different lobbyists, all of the different groups that represent different types of people trying to convince members of Congress either at the national level or even at the state level that their interest is right. Even within Congress, even though you have two major parties, you can have different factions that are really trying to argue it out."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "And what are examples of pluralist democracies? If you think about the United States, there are many different interest groups. You could think about all of the different lobbyists, all of the different groups that represent different types of people trying to convince members of Congress either at the national level or even at the state level that their interest is right. Even within Congress, even though you have two major parties, you can have different factions that are really trying to argue it out. Now, what are the benefits of a pluralist democracy? Well, you can imagine that because there's this vigorous debate, maybe the good ideas surface. Good ideas surface."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Even within Congress, even though you have two major parties, you can have different factions that are really trying to argue it out. Now, what are the benefits of a pluralist democracy? Well, you can imagine that because there's this vigorous debate, maybe the good ideas surface. Good ideas surface. You don't have domination by just one party. No one group, one group or a small group of people domination. But then on the other side of it, maybe there are some negatives."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Good ideas surface. You don't have domination by just one party. No one group, one group or a small group of people domination. But then on the other side of it, maybe there are some negatives. What might those be? Well, maybe all of this debate and argument is very inefficient. Maybe it's slow decision making, slow decisions, or at an extreme, no decisions."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "But then on the other side of it, maybe there are some negatives. What might those be? Well, maybe all of this debate and argument is very inefficient. Maybe it's slow decision making, slow decisions, or at an extreme, no decisions. Some things like gridlock because people can't agree to things that in order for anything to get done, you have to make too many people happy and they all have their interests. Maybe the opposite of good ideas surface. Maybe good ideas die because it's very hard to make everyone happy."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe it's slow decision making, slow decisions, or at an extreme, no decisions. Some things like gridlock because people can't agree to things that in order for anything to get done, you have to make too many people happy and they all have their interests. Maybe the opposite of good ideas surface. Maybe good ideas die because it's very hard to make everyone happy. Now, the last category that we're gonna talk about is the idea of an elite democracy. And this is where you have more limited participation. So in some ways, it's almost the opposite of a participatory democracy."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe good ideas die because it's very hard to make everyone happy. Now, the last category that we're gonna talk about is the idea of an elite democracy. And this is where you have more limited participation. So in some ways, it's almost the opposite of a participatory democracy. So this is limited, limited participation. And even though I gave ancient Athens as an example of a participatory democracy, it really was more of an elite democracy where the people had the time and the influence and the money. Those were the ones who were really weighing in on the issues of ancient Athens."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "So in some ways, it's almost the opposite of a participatory democracy. So this is limited, limited participation. And even though I gave ancient Athens as an example of a participatory democracy, it really was more of an elite democracy where the people had the time and the influence and the money. Those were the ones who were really weighing in on the issues of ancient Athens. And if you were to go to the Roman Republic, the Roman senators, these were, once again, elite men. So what would you think are benefits of an elite democracy? Well, one might be that these elites, so to speak, maybe they are more educated than the general public."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Those were the ones who were really weighing in on the issues of ancient Athens. And if you were to go to the Roman Republic, the Roman senators, these were, once again, elite men. So what would you think are benefits of an elite democracy? Well, one might be that these elites, so to speak, maybe they are more educated than the general public. And so that allows them to make more informed decisions, especially on things that are quite complex. So it would be hard for everyone to weigh in on. If you're gonna change a new accounting standard or think about how do you regulate the telecommunications industry or some very sophisticated trade negotiation or foreign policy negotiation that education might help."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, one might be that these elites, so to speak, maybe they are more educated than the general public. And so that allows them to make more informed decisions, especially on things that are quite complex. So it would be hard for everyone to weigh in on. If you're gonna change a new accounting standard or think about how do you regulate the telecommunications industry or some very sophisticated trade negotiation or foreign policy negotiation that education might help. And maybe it's also more decisive than either one of the pluralist or the participatory. The participatory, they might be able to appeal to maybe baser instincts, just people's passions, while the pluralists, since you have all of these groups competing, even if something makes sense, they might not be able to make that decision. But if you have a smaller, more limited group, limited participation, maybe they can make these decisions a little bit clearer."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "If you're gonna change a new accounting standard or think about how do you regulate the telecommunications industry or some very sophisticated trade negotiation or foreign policy negotiation that education might help. And maybe it's also more decisive than either one of the pluralist or the participatory. The participatory, they might be able to appeal to maybe baser instincts, just people's passions, while the pluralists, since you have all of these groups competing, even if something makes sense, they might not be able to make that decision. But if you have a smaller, more limited group, limited participation, maybe they can make these decisions a little bit clearer. But what are the negatives here? Well, the clearest negative is, well, maybe this goes against the whole idea of a democracy. If it's all about the elites, maybe they do a good job at truly representing the interests of the people, but maybe they are good at representing the interests of the elite."}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "But if you have a smaller, more limited group, limited participation, maybe they can make these decisions a little bit clearer. But what are the negatives here? Well, the clearest negative is, well, maybe this goes against the whole idea of a democracy. If it's all about the elites, maybe they do a good job at truly representing the interests of the people, but maybe they are good at representing the interests of the elite. So do they really represent the people? Is this a democracy where the people are sovereign, where the people rule? Or is this an oligarchy where only a few people rule and they rule in their own interests?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "If it's all about the elites, maybe they do a good job at truly representing the interests of the people, but maybe they are good at representing the interests of the elite. So do they really represent the people? Is this a democracy where the people are sovereign, where the people rule? Or is this an oligarchy where only a few people rule and they rule in their own interests? And so after watching this video, look at the world around you. Think about in the United States or whatever country you're watching from, what elements of a participatory democracy do you see? What elements of a pluralist democracy?"}, {"video_title": "Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations.mp3", "Sentence": "Or is this an oligarchy where only a few people rule and they rule in their own interests? And so after watching this video, look at the world around you. Think about in the United States or whatever country you're watching from, what elements of a participatory democracy do you see? What elements of a pluralist democracy? And what elements of an elite democracy do you see? And as we'll see in other videos, these dimensions of democracy were vigorously debated by the founding fathers when they thought about whether to ratify the Constitution. We'll see this debate when we look at the anti-federalist papers, especially we'll look closely at Brutus number one."}, {"video_title": "The naturalization process   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In this video, we're going to discuss the naturalization process, which non-citizens go through in order to gain their U.S. citizenship. Heads up that we won't be talking about the eligibility requirements that non-citizens must meet, or any of the challenges that they might face along the path to naturalization. We'll cover those in other videos. This is just an overview of what happens at each step in the process. If a non-citizen wants to start the naturalization process, the first step is for them to determine if they are eligible to become a U.S. citizen. Then, they have to wait. If they are married to a current U.S. citizen, they have to wait three years."}, {"video_title": "The naturalization process   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is just an overview of what happens at each step in the process. If a non-citizen wants to start the naturalization process, the first step is for them to determine if they are eligible to become a U.S. citizen. Then, they have to wait. If they are married to a current U.S. citizen, they have to wait three years. If they are not, they have to wait five years. During this time, many immigrants take special classes to prepare for citizenship. After the waiting period, if they are at least 18 years old and have been a resident of the state where they intend to file for at least three months, they may file an application for naturalization, an N-400."}, {"video_title": "The naturalization process   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If they are married to a current U.S. citizen, they have to wait three years. If they are not, they have to wait five years. During this time, many immigrants take special classes to prepare for citizenship. After the waiting period, if they are at least 18 years old and have been a resident of the state where they intend to file for at least three months, they may file an application for naturalization, an N-400. Once they've submitted their application, they must attend a biometrics appointment to have their fingerprints added to their records. Then, they'll have to complete an interview with an official from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to ensure that they meet the necessary requirements and to conduct the naturalization exam."}, {"video_title": "The naturalization process   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "After the waiting period, if they are at least 18 years old and have been a resident of the state where they intend to file for at least three months, they may file an application for naturalization, an N-400. Once they've submitted their application, they must attend a biometrics appointment to have their fingerprints added to their records. Then, they'll have to complete an interview with an official from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to ensure that they meet the necessary requirements and to conduct the naturalization exam. The exam has two parts, an English language test with questions about reading, writing, and speaking English, and a civics test with 10 questions on basic facts about the history and government of the United States. If the applicant gets six of the 10 questions right, they pass and their application is approved. The final step in the naturalization process is to attend a ceremony to pledge an oath of allegiance."}, {"video_title": "The naturalization process   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Citizenship and Immigration Services to ensure that they meet the necessary requirements and to conduct the naturalization exam. The exam has two parts, an English language test with questions about reading, writing, and speaking English, and a civics test with 10 questions on basic facts about the history and government of the United States. If the applicant gets six of the 10 questions right, they pass and their application is approved. The final step in the naturalization process is to attend a ceremony to pledge an oath of allegiance. The non-citizen swears to be loyal to the United States above all, to obey the Constitution and other laws, and to perform military or other duties if needed. Then, they sign a document and are declared a citizen of the United States. And if they have any children under the age of 18, their children automatically become naturalized citizens too."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This case was tied up with so many of the questions and problems that plagued America at this time, particularly slavery and the westward expansion of the nation that it's really easy to go far down into the rabbit hole on this one, but I'm gonna try to restrain myself and just give you the basics you need to know to understand what happened in the case and why it's important. If you do wanna learn more about the Dred Scott case, we have a much more in-depth video on the subject that I'll link to in the description. Okay, so let me set the scene for you. In the mid 1800s, the US government had been trying to balance the desires and the political power of the slave-owning Southern states and the free Northern states for decades. They kept making compromises to keep the union from falling apart. And one of these was the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The geography of this is important, so let's take a look at a map of North America at the time."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the mid 1800s, the US government had been trying to balance the desires and the political power of the slave-owning Southern states and the free Northern states for decades. They kept making compromises to keep the union from falling apart. And one of these was the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The geography of this is important, so let's take a look at a map of North America at the time. So here you can see the free states and territories of the North in green and the slave-owning states and territories in blue. In 1820, the US government agreed that to maintain the balance of power between slave and free states as new states entered the union from Western lands, new states below this 3630 line of latitude would be slave states, and above it would be free states. Missouri was the exception."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The geography of this is important, so let's take a look at a map of North America at the time. So here you can see the free states and territories of the North in green and the slave-owning states and territories in blue. In 1820, the US government agreed that to maintain the balance of power between slave and free states as new states entered the union from Western lands, new states below this 3630 line of latitude would be slave states, and above it would be free states. Missouri was the exception. The last slave state to be admitted above that line. Now, this compromise worked to stave off political disunion for 30 years, but by the 1850s, when a whole bunch of new states were set to enter the union following Mexico's cession of this land to the United States, the compromise was starting to fall apart. Now, what does all this have to do with a man named Dred Scott?"}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Missouri was the exception. The last slave state to be admitted above that line. Now, this compromise worked to stave off political disunion for 30 years, but by the 1850s, when a whole bunch of new states were set to enter the union following Mexico's cession of this land to the United States, the compromise was starting to fall apart. Now, what does all this have to do with a man named Dred Scott? Dred was an enslaved man who had been born into slavery in Virginia. His enslaver eventually moved to Missouri, and when Dred was about 30 years old, that man sold him to an army doctor named Emerson. Emerson took Dred to Illinois, where Dred married his wife Harriet, who was also enslaved."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, what does all this have to do with a man named Dred Scott? Dred was an enslaved man who had been born into slavery in Virginia. His enslaver eventually moved to Missouri, and when Dred was about 30 years old, that man sold him to an army doctor named Emerson. Emerson took Dred to Illinois, where Dred married his wife Harriet, who was also enslaved. Emerson went back to Missouri, but left Dred and Harriet in Illinois. He sold their services as labors and kept the money that they made, which was definitely illegal because he was practicing slavery in a free state. After a year or so, Emerson moved to Louisiana and married a woman named Eliza Sanford, and Emerson ordered Dred and Harriet to join them."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Emerson took Dred to Illinois, where Dred married his wife Harriet, who was also enslaved. Emerson went back to Missouri, but left Dred and Harriet in Illinois. He sold their services as labors and kept the money that they made, which was definitely illegal because he was practicing slavery in a free state. After a year or so, Emerson moved to Louisiana and married a woman named Eliza Sanford, and Emerson ordered Dred and Harriet to join them. They took a steamboat down to Louisiana, and while they were on that steamboat, Harriet gave birth to a baby girl who was lawfully free since she had been born in free territory. But the Emersons continued to enslave all three of them. Eventually, Dr. Emerson died, and his wife, Eliza Sanford, became the sole owner of the Scott family, who had moved back to Missouri with her."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "After a year or so, Emerson moved to Louisiana and married a woman named Eliza Sanford, and Emerson ordered Dred and Harriet to join them. They took a steamboat down to Louisiana, and while they were on that steamboat, Harriet gave birth to a baby girl who was lawfully free since she had been born in free territory. But the Emersons continued to enslave all three of them. Eventually, Dr. Emerson died, and his wife, Eliza Sanford, became the sole owner of the Scott family, who had moved back to Missouri with her. In 1846, Dred tried to purchase their freedom from her, but she refused, so he filed a freedom suit in Missouri court. He pled that since he had been taken into a free state, he should have been freed and that his family was being held unjustly. The case made its way through the courts over the course of several years, and in the meantime, Eliza transferred ownership of the Scots to her brother, John Sanford."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Eventually, Dr. Emerson died, and his wife, Eliza Sanford, became the sole owner of the Scott family, who had moved back to Missouri with her. In 1846, Dred tried to purchase their freedom from her, but she refused, so he filed a freedom suit in Missouri court. He pled that since he had been taken into a free state, he should have been freed and that his family was being held unjustly. The case made its way through the courts over the course of several years, and in the meantime, Eliza transferred ownership of the Scots to her brother, John Sanford. Since he lived in a different state, it became a federal case, and eventually it came before the Supreme Court. So in 1857, the Supreme Court, led at that time by Chief Justice Roger Taney, issued its ruling in Dred Scott versus Sanford. You'll notice that Sanford has an extra D in it in the title because it was entered incorrectly in the records and never changed."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The case made its way through the courts over the course of several years, and in the meantime, Eliza transferred ownership of the Scots to her brother, John Sanford. Since he lived in a different state, it became a federal case, and eventually it came before the Supreme Court. So in 1857, the Supreme Court, led at that time by Chief Justice Roger Taney, issued its ruling in Dred Scott versus Sanford. You'll notice that Sanford has an extra D in it in the title because it was entered incorrectly in the records and never changed. Taney wrote the majority opinion, and he came to two main conclusions. First, that Dred Scott couldn't bring suit in the Supreme Court because he was black and the descendant of enslaved Africans. Taney said that he believed the founders of the United States had never intended for black people, enslaved or free, to have citizenship rights."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You'll notice that Sanford has an extra D in it in the title because it was entered incorrectly in the records and never changed. Taney wrote the majority opinion, and he came to two main conclusions. First, that Dred Scott couldn't bring suit in the Supreme Court because he was black and the descendant of enslaved Africans. Taney said that he believed the founders of the United States had never intended for black people, enslaved or free, to have citizenship rights. He made a distinction between black people, who he believed the founders intended for perpetual servitude, and indigenous people, who he thought had been treated as members of separate nations and therefore could immigrate to the United States if they wanted to. What does this tell you about how Taney was envisioning citizenship and who was eligible to claim it? Now, generally in cases when the Supreme Court rules that it doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a case, it stops there."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Taney said that he believed the founders of the United States had never intended for black people, enslaved or free, to have citizenship rights. He made a distinction between black people, who he believed the founders intended for perpetual servitude, and indigenous people, who he thought had been treated as members of separate nations and therefore could immigrate to the United States if they wanted to. What does this tell you about how Taney was envisioning citizenship and who was eligible to claim it? Now, generally in cases when the Supreme Court rules that it doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a case, it stops there. It doesn't go on to give any opinion about the merits of the case itself. But Taney bucked that convention and went on to make a ruling about whether going over that Missouri Compromise line from a slave state to a free one made Dred Scott free. And he said that it didn't and that the whole Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because it interfered with slave owners' property rights."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, generally in cases when the Supreme Court rules that it doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a case, it stops there. It doesn't go on to give any opinion about the merits of the case itself. But Taney bucked that convention and went on to make a ruling about whether going over that Missouri Compromise line from a slave state to a free one made Dred Scott free. And he said that it didn't and that the whole Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because it interfered with slave owners' property rights. Now, it's worth mentioning here that the Dred Scott decision is universally regarded as the worst Supreme Court decision of all time, not just because it was morally bankrupt, but also because it wasn't based on sound reasoning. Taney definitely cherry-picked his evidence about the founders never intending black people to be citizens. For example, he left out the fact that propertied black men could vote in five of the original 13 states at the time of the founding, and that the founders agreed to outlaw slavery in the Northwest Territory, both of which suggest that there wasn't any kind of consensus among the founders about the status of black people or the future of slavery in the West."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he said that it didn't and that the whole Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because it interfered with slave owners' property rights. Now, it's worth mentioning here that the Dred Scott decision is universally regarded as the worst Supreme Court decision of all time, not just because it was morally bankrupt, but also because it wasn't based on sound reasoning. Taney definitely cherry-picked his evidence about the founders never intending black people to be citizens. For example, he left out the fact that propertied black men could vote in five of the original 13 states at the time of the founding, and that the founders agreed to outlaw slavery in the Northwest Territory, both of which suggest that there wasn't any kind of consensus among the founders about the status of black people or the future of slavery in the West. So what was the impact of this decision? The Supreme Court thought that this decision was going to settle the question about slavery and its spread to the West for good, but it ended up completely backfiring. Tensions between the North and South started to reach a fever pitch after this decision."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "For example, he left out the fact that propertied black men could vote in five of the original 13 states at the time of the founding, and that the founders agreed to outlaw slavery in the Northwest Territory, both of which suggest that there wasn't any kind of consensus among the founders about the status of black people or the future of slavery in the West. So what was the impact of this decision? The Supreme Court thought that this decision was going to settle the question about slavery and its spread to the West for good, but it ended up completely backfiring. Tensions between the North and South started to reach a fever pitch after this decision. Abraham Lincoln started to gain a national following because of his arguments against this case. And eventually, civil war would erupt and Lincoln became president. After the Civil War, two new amendments to the Constitution would undo the Dred Scott decision, the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship rights for all people born in the United States."}, {"video_title": "The Dred Scott case and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Tensions between the North and South started to reach a fever pitch after this decision. Abraham Lincoln started to gain a national following because of his arguments against this case. And eventually, civil war would erupt and Lincoln became president. After the Civil War, two new amendments to the Constitution would undo the Dred Scott decision, the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship rights for all people born in the United States. Although Dred Scott lost his case, just two months later, he did get his freedom. He didn't get to enjoy it for long, though, since he died just a year later. His wife, Harriet, and two daughters did survive to see the end of slavery and the 14th Amendment, and his great-great-grandchildren are alive today."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's amazing. So George Washington, his friends have to plead with him to come to the Constitutional Convention. He thinks, frankly, that rewriting the rules of the country is not going to work. But they finally convince him to come and they make him president of the convention and they put him at the front of the room and he says almost nothing during the entire four months. But what he does is at the front of the room he is a model because remember he resigned his commission as commander of the Continental Army and gave up power. He didn't seize the power that he had as he was basically the biggest celebrity in America. And he gave his commission back to the government which was an act of sublimating his own personal self-interest for the benefit of the republic."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But they finally convince him to come and they make him president of the convention and they put him at the front of the room and he says almost nothing during the entire four months. But what he does is at the front of the room he is a model because remember he resigned his commission as commander of the Continental Army and gave up power. He didn't seize the power that he had as he was basically the biggest celebrity in America. And he gave his commission back to the government which was an act of sublimating his own personal self-interest for the benefit of the republic. And that's the model they wanted for the Constitution. So he didn't say much but they designed basically as one writer said that what they were essentially doing was writing his future job description because everybody in the room knew he would ultimately become the president because there was nobody else in America like him. And what was important was not that he was a general but that he had this virtue inside of him which was that he would know how far to go and when to stop and when to protect those liberties."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he gave his commission back to the government which was an act of sublimating his own personal self-interest for the benefit of the republic. And that's the model they wanted for the Constitution. So he didn't say much but they designed basically as one writer said that what they were essentially doing was writing his future job description because everybody in the room knew he would ultimately become the president because there was nobody else in America like him. And what was important was not that he was a general but that he had this virtue inside of him which was that he would know how far to go and when to stop and when to protect those liberties. And so he sat on a chair with a sun on the back of it. And at the end of the proceedings Benjamin Franklin who was the only other great kind of superstar in America who participated in the convention said that he looked at that sun on Washington's chair and he wasn't sure whether it was a rising sun or a setting sun. But now after they finished their work he had decided that the sun was rising which was basically anointing and blessing everything that had happened there and this new office of presidency that they had created that George Washington was to go walk into and that's why Washington's statue is in front of Independence Hall where the Constitutional Convention took place."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what was important was not that he was a general but that he had this virtue inside of him which was that he would know how far to go and when to stop and when to protect those liberties. And so he sat on a chair with a sun on the back of it. And at the end of the proceedings Benjamin Franklin who was the only other great kind of superstar in America who participated in the convention said that he looked at that sun on Washington's chair and he wasn't sure whether it was a rising sun or a setting sun. But now after they finished their work he had decided that the sun was rising which was basically anointing and blessing everything that had happened there and this new office of presidency that they had created that George Washington was to go walk into and that's why Washington's statue is in front of Independence Hall where the Constitutional Convention took place. But in the dialogue over four months you almost never see his words. He was there as a symbol and participant but not like James Madison or James Wilson or Gouverneur Morris who were in there in the nitty gritty of every little detail. Do we know what Washington was thinking?"}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But now after they finished their work he had decided that the sun was rising which was basically anointing and blessing everything that had happened there and this new office of presidency that they had created that George Washington was to go walk into and that's why Washington's statue is in front of Independence Hall where the Constitutional Convention took place. But in the dialogue over four months you almost never see his words. He was there as a symbol and participant but not like James Madison or James Wilson or Gouverneur Morris who were in there in the nitty gritty of every little detail. Do we know what Washington was thinking? Did he want the job, did he have a view or he just said hey I'm just going to do what everyone else decides? Fortunately they did everything in secret. Washington was so virtuous that he didn't even write about it in his diary."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Do we know what Washington was thinking? Did he want the job, did he have a view or he just said hey I'm just going to do what everyone else decides? Fortunately they did everything in secret. Washington was so virtuous that he didn't even write about it in his diary. Now fortunately we have other people who did keep diaries and James Madison took notes and said publish them only after all 55 members are dead. What Washington thought is he wanted a central government because as a general he knew there had to be an army to handle rebellions and there had been Shay's Rebellion that had tested under the Articles of Confederation. So he wanted a strong government but he was very worried that having been successful revolutionaries they could do what he knew was hard by history which is that revolutionaries aren't very good at creating governments."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Washington was so virtuous that he didn't even write about it in his diary. Now fortunately we have other people who did keep diaries and James Madison took notes and said publish them only after all 55 members are dead. What Washington thought is he wanted a central government because as a general he knew there had to be an army to handle rebellions and there had been Shay's Rebellion that had tested under the Articles of Confederation. So he wanted a strong government but he was very worried that having been successful revolutionaries they could do what he knew was hard by history which is that revolutionaries aren't very good at creating governments. And so he knew that what they were doing was a real risk and a real gamble. He believed that it could be done however. He believed that a strong national government was required."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So he wanted a strong government but he was very worried that having been successful revolutionaries they could do what he knew was hard by history which is that revolutionaries aren't very good at creating governments. And so he knew that what they were doing was a real risk and a real gamble. He believed that it could be done however. He believed that a strong national government was required. But then when he was given the job he was incredibly nervous. This incredible military leader basically thought that he might fail. It was more likely than not that this whole darn thing would fail and that he might fail."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He believed that a strong national government was required. But then when he was given the job he was incredibly nervous. This incredible military leader basically thought that he might fail. It was more likely than not that this whole darn thing would fail and that he might fail. And as he rode to his inauguration he kept writing letters and in his diary talking about how the expectations of his countrymen were just too much for him. And that was both a personal worry and he also worried about monarchy. How does monarchy build?"}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It was more likely than not that this whole darn thing would fail and that he might fail. And as he rode to his inauguration he kept writing letters and in his diary talking about how the expectations of his countrymen were just too much for him. And that was both a personal worry and he also worried about monarchy. How does monarchy build? It's either when a monarch demands power or when the mob hands all of the power to the person and says do everything for us and gives them ultimate power. And what they knew in the convention was that human beings were sinful and could not handle power. If they were given the power they would abuse it as surely as the sun comes up in the morning."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How does monarchy build? It's either when a monarch demands power or when the mob hands all of the power to the person and says do everything for us and gives them ultimate power. And what they knew in the convention was that human beings were sinful and could not handle power. If they were given the power they would abuse it as surely as the sun comes up in the morning. And he was worried that if given too much power perhaps he could be susceptible to that. And so he was for as confident as much of a model of strength as he was a very nervous guy. And it sounds like an unusual person where the power at least as the history I've read didn't corrupt him and he didn't try to do a power grab."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If they were given the power they would abuse it as surely as the sun comes up in the morning. And he was worried that if given too much power perhaps he could be susceptible to that. And so he was for as confident as much of a model of strength as he was a very nervous guy. And it sounds like an unusual person where the power at least as the history I've read didn't corrupt him and he didn't try to do a power grab. That's right. Washington was constantly, he was a man of a rigid code. And he believed that the standards were necessary for the proper kind of human behavior."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it sounds like an unusual person where the power at least as the history I've read didn't corrupt him and he didn't try to do a power grab. That's right. Washington was constantly, he was a man of a rigid code. And he believed that the standards were necessary for the proper kind of human behavior. He wrote a list of a hundred different things that a gentleman should do to comport himself in the proper way in society. And that's what made him such a good model. I'd like a copy of that list."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he believed that the standards were necessary for the proper kind of human behavior. He wrote a list of a hundred different things that a gentleman should do to comport himself in the proper way in society. And that's what made him such a good model. I'd like a copy of that list. Yes, exactly. I'm assuming I don't check most of them off. We'd all be better."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I'd like a copy of that list. Yes, exactly. I'm assuming I don't check most of them off. We'd all be better. But things like clearing your throat, how you behave in the presence of a lady. And he believed in these codes because he believed if everybody maintained them then the system would work. This was during the period where Newton's laws were making people think about a clockwork universe where if everything runs, if the machine is put together with tension, right, so it recognized that people were not angels, tension in the machine."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We'd all be better. But things like clearing your throat, how you behave in the presence of a lady. And he believed in these codes because he believed if everybody maintained them then the system would work. This was during the period where Newton's laws were making people think about a clockwork universe where if everything runs, if the machine is put together with tension, right, so it recognized that people were not angels, tension in the machine. But if everybody did their thing and the pieces stayed in their lane as it were then the clock would work. And so he had that code which tried to keep him in his place and keep everybody else in his place and he set a standard. And then everybody tried to live up to it as opposed to saying well that standard's nice but I'm now going to go do this."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This was during the period where Newton's laws were making people think about a clockwork universe where if everything runs, if the machine is put together with tension, right, so it recognized that people were not angels, tension in the machine. But if everybody did their thing and the pieces stayed in their lane as it were then the clock would work. And so he had that code which tried to keep him in his place and keep everybody else in his place and he set a standard. And then everybody tried to live up to it as opposed to saying well that standard's nice but I'm now going to go do this. And that's why when he resigned his military commission and he also undid a coup that some of his men were planning back when he was leader of the army, they were basically going to go to Congress and say, this is in Newburgh, New York, they were going to go to Congress and say unless you give us our money we're going to stage a coup. He found out about the plot, went to his men and said this is a sin both against the revolution and my own personal virtue because I put myself on the line. They backed off and what he could have done is say let's go, let's ride to Washington and get you your money."}, {"video_title": "Why was George Washington the first president   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then everybody tried to live up to it as opposed to saying well that standard's nice but I'm now going to go do this. And that's why when he resigned his military commission and he also undid a coup that some of his men were planning back when he was leader of the army, they were basically going to go to Congress and say, this is in Newburgh, New York, they were going to go to Congress and say unless you give us our money we're going to stage a coup. He found out about the plot, went to his men and said this is a sin both against the revolution and my own personal virtue because I put myself on the line. They backed off and what he could have done is say let's go, let's ride to Washington and get you your money. You fought in this war, your wives and children are begging and poor, you deserve this money, let's use our power and authority and take it. And he said no. Now Joseph Ellis, the historian, writes about it as being the last temptation of Washington as a general."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What we're going to do in this video is think about how the core beliefs of US citizens impacts their views on the role of government. And what I'm gonna do is talk about a few core beliefs that are often associated with the United States, but take it with a grain of salt. It's obviously a very large and a very diverse country where people have many, many, many beliefs. Now one thing that often gets associated with the United States is this idea of self-reliance. Self-reliance, or sometimes it would be called individualism, or these are related ideas, individualism. And this is the idea that, hey look, an individual, if people don't get in their way, can take care of themselves. That the goals of that individual should sometimes or often trump those of the collective or say the government."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now one thing that often gets associated with the United States is this idea of self-reliance. Self-reliance, or sometimes it would be called individualism, or these are related ideas, individualism. And this is the idea that, hey look, an individual, if people don't get in their way, can take care of themselves. That the goals of that individual should sometimes or often trump those of the collective or say the government. And so you can imagine, someone who has a strong core belief in self-reliance or individualism, they would want a limited government. They would say, hey government, just get out of my way and I can take care of myself. Now a related idea to that, but this would be going into the corporate realm or the entrepreneurial realm, is the idea of free enterprise."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That the goals of that individual should sometimes or often trump those of the collective or say the government. And so you can imagine, someone who has a strong core belief in self-reliance or individualism, they would want a limited government. They would say, hey government, just get out of my way and I can take care of myself. Now a related idea to that, but this would be going into the corporate realm or the entrepreneurial realm, is the idea of free enterprise. Free enterprise. And this is the idea that, hey, we can generate wealth, we can create things, we can innovate, once again, if enterprise, if entrepreneurial activity is left to its own devices. Now once again, this core belief in free enterprise would probably favor a limited government."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now a related idea to that, but this would be going into the corporate realm or the entrepreneurial realm, is the idea of free enterprise. Free enterprise. And this is the idea that, hey, we can generate wealth, we can create things, we can innovate, once again, if enterprise, if entrepreneurial activity is left to its own devices. Now once again, this core belief in free enterprise would probably favor a limited government. Hey government, just get out of my way. The more that you get involved, that just slows things down. That just is a wet blanket on the creativity and on the wealth creation that we could do left to our own devices."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now once again, this core belief in free enterprise would probably favor a limited government. Hey government, just get out of my way. The more that you get involved, that just slows things down. That just is a wet blanket on the creativity and on the wealth creation that we could do left to our own devices. Now another idea is that of equality of opportunity, often associated with the United States. Equality of opportunity. And this goes to the roots of the United States, where we don't have a formal nobility."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That just is a wet blanket on the creativity and on the wealth creation that we could do left to our own devices. Now another idea is that of equality of opportunity, often associated with the United States. Equality of opportunity. And this goes to the roots of the United States, where we don't have a formal nobility. Obviously we don't have things like kings. That the country started off, obviously there's some major exceptions around things like slavery, but the country took pride in ideas of equality of opportunity. And to some degree, they feed into these first two bullet points, that if there truly is equality of opportunity, it kind of backs up the idea that, hey, let's just let people take care of themselves."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this goes to the roots of the United States, where we don't have a formal nobility. Obviously we don't have things like kings. That the country started off, obviously there's some major exceptions around things like slavery, but the country took pride in ideas of equality of opportunity. And to some degree, they feed into these first two bullet points, that if there truly is equality of opportunity, it kind of backs up the idea that, hey, let's just let people take care of themselves. Now on the other hand, someone who really cares about equality of opportunity might say, well hold on a second. Not everyone is born into the same circumstance. And because of that, if you truly care about equality of opportunity, there might be a role for the government to play in helping to level that playing field a bit."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And to some degree, they feed into these first two bullet points, that if there truly is equality of opportunity, it kind of backs up the idea that, hey, let's just let people take care of themselves. Now on the other hand, someone who really cares about equality of opportunity might say, well hold on a second. Not everyone is born into the same circumstance. And because of that, if you truly care about equality of opportunity, there might be a role for the government to play in helping to level that playing field a bit. So these folks might not want as limited of a government as some of the folks who are strongly in the camp of self-reliance or individualism. Now the fourth core belief I'll talk about, and that is the rule of law. Rule of law."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And because of that, if you truly care about equality of opportunity, there might be a role for the government to play in helping to level that playing field a bit. So these folks might not want as limited of a government as some of the folks who are strongly in the camp of self-reliance or individualism. Now the fourth core belief I'll talk about, and that is the rule of law. Rule of law. Now any country, in order to function, needs a rule of law. But one thing that the United States takes pride in itself, and I think United States citizens take pride in itself, is that, hey look, if there's going to be a contract between individuals, people will uphold that contract. That because of a solid rule of law, it's less likely that people will get away with crimes."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Rule of law. Now any country, in order to function, needs a rule of law. But one thing that the United States takes pride in itself, and I think United States citizens take pride in itself, is that, hey look, if there's going to be a contract between individuals, people will uphold that contract. That because of a solid rule of law, it's less likely that people will get away with crimes. And there are examples that you could look around the world where people might have less faith in the rule of law. Well, let's say, yeah, people are getting away with stuff. Or if I get into an agreement with someone, there's no way that I can really enforce that agreement."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That because of a solid rule of law, it's less likely that people will get away with crimes. And there are examples that you could look around the world where people might have less faith in the rule of law. Well, let's say, yeah, people are getting away with stuff. Or if I get into an agreement with someone, there's no way that I can really enforce that agreement. And so the rule of law, this would argue for some role of government, but it depends how focused or how limited of a rule of law people's core beliefs are. And to make these core beliefs and their impact on government a little bit more tangible, I have some quotes from some notable Americans. Now several of these are presidents, but their views are really indicative of broader views in the American population."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or if I get into an agreement with someone, there's no way that I can really enforce that agreement. And so the rule of law, this would argue for some role of government, but it depends how focused or how limited of a rule of law people's core beliefs are. And to make these core beliefs and their impact on government a little bit more tangible, I have some quotes from some notable Americans. Now several of these are presidents, but their views are really indicative of broader views in the American population. So this first one comes from President Ronald Reagan, and he said, government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. So which core beliefs do you think Ronald Reagan is representing here? Well, when I look at this, it seems like he doesn't want the government to really mess with people's lives."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now several of these are presidents, but their views are really indicative of broader views in the American population. So this first one comes from President Ronald Reagan, and he said, government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. So which core beliefs do you think Ronald Reagan is representing here? Well, when I look at this, it seems like he doesn't want the government to really mess with people's lives. He's really talking about self-reliance, individualism, free enterprise. And he is making some reference that, look, there is a duty to protect the people. So he's saying you do need the government to enforce the rule of law, but he seems to favor a limited government, and he indeed did favor a limited government that does not get in the way of, say, free enterprise or people's ability to be self-reliant."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, when I look at this, it seems like he doesn't want the government to really mess with people's lives. He's really talking about self-reliance, individualism, free enterprise. And he is making some reference that, look, there is a duty to protect the people. So he's saying you do need the government to enforce the rule of law, but he seems to favor a limited government, and he indeed did favor a limited government that does not get in the way of, say, free enterprise or people's ability to be self-reliant. Now some would argue on the other end of the spectrum, here is a quote from Franklin Roosevelt in which he said, not only are future economic soundness, but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men. So FDR here is talking about a very active government, not the type of limited government that Ronald Reagan seems to allude to. Here he's saying that it's the job of the government, and remember, the context here is FDR was president during the Great Depression and the beginning of World War II, and during the Great Depression, you had massive unemployment, and he's saying, look, not only the future of our economic soundness, but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of the government to give employment to these men."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So he's saying you do need the government to enforce the rule of law, but he seems to favor a limited government, and he indeed did favor a limited government that does not get in the way of, say, free enterprise or people's ability to be self-reliant. Now some would argue on the other end of the spectrum, here is a quote from Franklin Roosevelt in which he said, not only are future economic soundness, but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men. So FDR here is talking about a very active government, not the type of limited government that Ronald Reagan seems to allude to. Here he's saying that it's the job of the government, and remember, the context here is FDR was president during the Great Depression and the beginning of World War II, and during the Great Depression, you had massive unemployment, and he's saying, look, not only the future of our economic soundness, but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of the government to give employment to these men. Now his argument might have been, look, if we don't give employment, then you could have a revolution on your hands. People are gonna lose faith in this idea of the United States. They're gonna lose faith in the government."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Here he's saying that it's the job of the government, and remember, the context here is FDR was president during the Great Depression and the beginning of World War II, and during the Great Depression, you had massive unemployment, and he's saying, look, not only the future of our economic soundness, but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of the government to give employment to these men. Now his argument might have been, look, if we don't give employment, then you could have a revolution on your hands. People are gonna lose faith in this idea of the United States. They're gonna lose faith in the government. Now on the other hand, some people might say the whole reason why we were in that mess is that the government was intervening too much, and the more that the government intervenes, it actually might not allow free enterprise to naturally solve the economic situation that we were in at the time. But once again, Franklin Roosevelt seemed to be a little bit less on self-reliance, because he said, look, these people aren't gonna find jobs on their own, the government needs to get them jobs. Now here's another viewpoint."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They're gonna lose faith in the government. Now on the other hand, some people might say the whole reason why we were in that mess is that the government was intervening too much, and the more that the government intervenes, it actually might not allow free enterprise to naturally solve the economic situation that we were in at the time. But once again, Franklin Roosevelt seemed to be a little bit less on self-reliance, because he said, look, these people aren't gonna find jobs on their own, the government needs to get them jobs. Now here's another viewpoint. This is from President Barack Obama, and here President Obama says the internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the internet, so that all the companies could make money off the internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now here's another viewpoint. This is from President Barack Obama, and here President Obama says the internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the internet, so that all the companies could make money off the internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. So this is an interesting argument. He's, when he's saying this, he's clearly making reference to these ideas of individualism and free enterprise that are strong core beliefs in the United States. This individualism is, we succeed because of our individual initiative, and free enterprise, these companies that are making money off the internet."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. So this is an interesting argument. He's, when he's saying this, he's clearly making reference to these ideas of individualism and free enterprise that are strong core beliefs in the United States. This individualism is, we succeed because of our individual initiative, and free enterprise, these companies that are making money off the internet. But his point is that these things didn't happen on their own, that at least in this case, the internet was started as a government project. You had DARPAnet and ARPANet, which eventually evolved into the internet so that free enterprise could take over and frankly allow you to watch this video. He's saying that the government actually does have a role here, and because of that role that the government has played, it has actually allowed things like self-reliance, individualism, and free enterprise to flourish even more."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This individualism is, we succeed because of our individual initiative, and free enterprise, these companies that are making money off the internet. But his point is that these things didn't happen on their own, that at least in this case, the internet was started as a government project. You had DARPAnet and ARPANet, which eventually evolved into the internet so that free enterprise could take over and frankly allow you to watch this video. He's saying that the government actually does have a role here, and because of that role that the government has played, it has actually allowed things like self-reliance, individualism, and free enterprise to flourish even more. And last but not least, I'll give you a quote from famous conservative economist Milton Friedman. He used to be a professor at the University of Chicago. And he said, government has three primary functions."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's saying that the government actually does have a role here, and because of that role that the government has played, it has actually allowed things like self-reliance, individualism, and free enterprise to flourish even more. And last but not least, I'll give you a quote from famous conservative economist Milton Friedman. He used to be a professor at the University of Chicago. And he said, government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he said, government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. And so Milton Friedman here is clearly advocating for a limited government. In terms of his core beliefs, clearly from the statement, he says, look, a rule of law is necessary. You have to have your contracts between citizens, you need to protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property."}, {"video_title": "American attitudes about government and politics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. And so Milton Friedman here is clearly advocating for a limited government. In terms of his core beliefs, clearly from the statement, he says, look, a rule of law is necessary. You have to have your contracts between citizens, you need to protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. If you read more Milton Friedman quotes, and I encourage you to regardless of where you are on the philosophical spectrum, they're all quite interesting. He has a strong underlying core belief in self-reliance, individualism, and free enterprise. But I'll leave you there."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When we learned about Social Security, we saw that the people who are currently working are paying their FICA taxes. Essentially those revenues are being used directly to provide the Social Security benefits for existing retirees and other beneficiaries. And any surplus goes to the Social Security Trust. And when you had this baby boomer generation on the left hand side of this system right here. So the baby boomer generation is this huge population boom that happened after World War II, after the country was happy and all the soldiers had come back. They produced a lot of babies. So you had this population boom."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And when you had this baby boomer generation on the left hand side of this system right here. So the baby boomer generation is this huge population boom that happened after World War II, after the country was happy and all the soldiers had come back. They produced a lot of babies. So you had this population boom. And when this population boom was on the left hand side of the system, they were able to generate a lot of revenue to supply for the benefits for essentially their parents generation. And so that did help build the surplus. The problem is that the population did not grow as much in the next generation."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you had this population boom. And when this population boom was on the left hand side of the system, they were able to generate a lot of revenue to supply for the benefits for essentially their parents generation. And so that did help build the surplus. The problem is that the population did not grow as much in the next generation. And you could view that as a problem or a good thing. But it's a problem in the context of Social Security because starting recently and over the next few decades, this baby boom generation is going to move on to the right hand side of this equation. And we saw that they will start to draw down even this surplus fairly soon."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The problem is that the population did not grow as much in the next generation. And you could view that as a problem or a good thing. But it's a problem in the context of Social Security because starting recently and over the next few decades, this baby boom generation is going to move on to the right hand side of this equation. And we saw that they will start to draw down even this surplus fairly soon. And that because of this demographic change, the Social Security surplus will be completely depleted between 2030 and 2040. Medicare is very similar. You have some portion of the FICA tax is for Medicare and that that revenue is used to pay for the health benefits of the retirees."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And we saw that they will start to draw down even this surplus fairly soon. And that because of this demographic change, the Social Security surplus will be completely depleted between 2030 and 2040. Medicare is very similar. You have some portion of the FICA tax is for Medicare and that that revenue is used to pay for the health benefits of the retirees. Any surplus goes into a Medicare trust. And that Medicare trust, the formal name is the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. The problem with Medicare is that the situation is even worse."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have some portion of the FICA tax is for Medicare and that that revenue is used to pay for the health benefits of the retirees. Any surplus goes into a Medicare trust. And that Medicare trust, the formal name is the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. The problem with Medicare is that the situation is even worse. The Medicare trust, or I guess we could say the Medicare system is already running at a deficit. Meaning that they're spending more money on the right than they're getting in on the left. So they're already starting to draw down their trust."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The problem with Medicare is that the situation is even worse. The Medicare trust, or I guess we could say the Medicare system is already running at a deficit. Meaning that they're spending more money on the right than they're getting in on the left. So they're already starting to draw down their trust. So Social Security, at least the trust is continuing to grow until 2023 or that's our best estimate right now. Then it will start drawing down and it will get depleted between 2030 and 2040. In Medicare, the situation is a lot worse."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they're already starting to draw down their trust. So Social Security, at least the trust is continuing to grow until 2023 or that's our best estimate right now. Then it will start drawing down and it will get depleted between 2030 and 2040. In Medicare, the situation is a lot worse. So in Medicare, we are already starting to draw down the trust. We are already spending more on beneficiaries than we were taking in FICA revenues. And the entire trust, based on our current assumptions, will probably be depleted in the next 10 years."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In Medicare, the situation is a lot worse. So in Medicare, we are already starting to draw down the trust. We are already spending more on beneficiaries than we were taking in FICA revenues. And the entire trust, based on our current assumptions, will probably be depleted in the next 10 years. Depleted in next 10 years. And what makes Medicare especially troubling, despite the fact that it's in a worse financial position, is that these costs are growing even faster. And I want to be clear, a lot of people think that the..."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the entire trust, based on our current assumptions, will probably be depleted in the next 10 years. Depleted in next 10 years. And what makes Medicare especially troubling, despite the fact that it's in a worse financial position, is that these costs are growing even faster. And I want to be clear, a lot of people think that the... So for Social Security, the main problem with this system over here is the demographic changes. You have this huge population that's retiring, the baby boomers, which makes this not sustainable. But with Medicare, that's also going on."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I want to be clear, a lot of people think that the... So for Social Security, the main problem with this system over here is the demographic changes. You have this huge population that's retiring, the baby boomers, which makes this not sustainable. But with Medicare, that's also going on. But what makes Medicare even a bigger problem than Social Security is above and beyond those demographic changes. Above and beyond this baby boomer generation retiring, instead of paying into Medicare, taking benefits from Medicare. The big problem is that you actually have medical health care costs going up well above the cost of inflation."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But with Medicare, that's also going on. But what makes Medicare even a bigger problem than Social Security is above and beyond those demographic changes. Above and beyond this baby boomer generation retiring, instead of paying into Medicare, taking benefits from Medicare. The big problem is that you actually have medical health care costs going up well above the cost of inflation. For Social Security, these people's benefits just go up with inflation. For Medicare, the benefits go up with the cost of medical care. And that's going well above the cost of inflation."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The big problem is that you actually have medical health care costs going up well above the cost of inflation. For Social Security, these people's benefits just go up with inflation. For Medicare, the benefits go up with the cost of medical care. And that's going well above the cost of inflation. And so you have this situation where, based on current benefits and our best assumptions about the economy and the FICA taxes coming in, you kind of have a reality where if you had to give the current benefits and if you expect medical costs, health care costs, to continue to increase at the rate they're doing, and there's no sign, frankly, that it is stopping, then you have this reality that Medicare, left unchecked, could, right now, it's roughly about 23% of our budget, or about 4% of our GDP. So here we are in 2011. It's about 4% of our GDP."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's going well above the cost of inflation. And so you have this situation where, based on current benefits and our best assumptions about the economy and the FICA taxes coming in, you kind of have a reality where if you had to give the current benefits and if you expect medical costs, health care costs, to continue to increase at the rate they're doing, and there's no sign, frankly, that it is stopping, then you have this reality that Medicare, left unchecked, could, right now, it's roughly about 23% of our budget, or about 4% of our GDP. So here we are in 2011. It's about 4% of our GDP. We're spending on Medicare and Medicaid. And Medicaid is essentially health benefits for mainly the poor. It's run by the states, but it gets federal funding."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's about 4% of our GDP. We're spending on Medicare and Medicaid. And Medicaid is essentially health benefits for mainly the poor. It's run by the states, but it gets federal funding. So right now, that's 4% of GDP. But because of the cost growth in health care costs, and if we leave it completely unchecked, over the next 50, 60 years, it could grow to 15%, 16%, 17% of GDP. And just to be clear, that's the percentage of GDP that's roughly our entire federal budget."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's run by the states, but it gets federal funding. So right now, that's 4% of GDP. But because of the cost growth in health care costs, and if we leave it completely unchecked, over the next 50, 60 years, it could grow to 15%, 16%, 17% of GDP. And just to be clear, that's the percentage of GDP that's roughly our entire federal budget. So this has the potential, if we don't grow our budget any, to actually crowd out a lot of other things. And just to understand this graph a little bit, they show the part in the cost of Medicare, the part of the growth due to different things. This is the effect of aging population."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And just to be clear, that's the percentage of GDP that's roughly our entire federal budget. So this has the potential, if we don't grow our budget any, to actually crowd out a lot of other things. And just to understand this graph a little bit, they show the part in the cost of Medicare, the part of the growth due to different things. This is the effect of aging population. This is the effect of excess cost growth. And then this is the interaction of the two. And to understand why that makes sense, you just have to think about the total cost being the product of the number, maybe you could say the net number of recipients, because some people are paying in as well, but this will hopefully help you understand what I'm talking about."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is the effect of aging population. This is the effect of excess cost growth. And then this is the interaction of the two. And to understand why that makes sense, you just have to think about the total cost being the product of the number, maybe you could say the net number of recipients, because some people are paying in as well, but this will hopefully help you understand what I'm talking about. Number of recipients times the cost per recipient. So let's say that this is the cost per recipient. So if you take the number of recipients times the cost per recipient, you're going to get the total cost."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And to understand why that makes sense, you just have to think about the total cost being the product of the number, maybe you could say the net number of recipients, because some people are paying in as well, but this will hopefully help you understand what I'm talking about. Number of recipients times the cost per recipient. So let's say that this is the cost per recipient. So if you take the number of recipients times the cost per recipient, you're going to get the total cost. Let's say that's the total cost today. So that would be the area of that square. We're just multiplying the base times the height."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if you take the number of recipients times the cost per recipient, you're going to get the total cost. Let's say that's the total cost today. So that would be the area of that square. We're just multiplying the base times the height. So current costs. Current annual cost. Now, because of demographic changes, you're going to have some increase in the net number of recipients."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We're just multiplying the base times the height. So current costs. Current annual cost. Now, because of demographic changes, you're going to have some increase in the net number of recipients. So you're going to have some increase there. But because of medical cost growth, you're going to have a big increase in the cost per recipient. So this thing is going to increase much more."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, because of demographic changes, you're going to have some increase in the net number of recipients. So you're going to have some increase there. But because of medical cost growth, you're going to have a big increase in the cost per recipient. So this thing is going to increase much more. And so if you go to some future point, and you can pick your future point, but I'm really just trying to make you understand why we have these three categories, the total cost is going to be that total cost per recipient that has grown dramatically times the total number of recipients. And so now you're talking about this area. This area is going to be the total cost."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this thing is going to increase much more. And so if you go to some future point, and you can pick your future point, but I'm really just trying to make you understand why we have these three categories, the total cost is going to be that total cost per recipient that has grown dramatically times the total number of recipients. And so now you're talking about this area. This area is going to be the total cost. And if you think about how much of this total cost is due purely to the increased cost growth, well, it would be this part right over here. This part would be the amount, the cost, the increase in the area purely due to the increased cost growth. So that would be this part of the graph right over here."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This area is going to be the total cost. And if you think about how much of this total cost is due purely to the increased cost growth, well, it would be this part right over here. This part would be the amount, the cost, the increase in the area purely due to the increased cost growth. So that would be this part of the graph right over here. What part of this increased area is due purely to the increased number of recipients? Well, that would be this part of the graph right over here, purely due to the increased number of recipients, and that is right over here, effect of aging population. And then you have some part of this area that's created by both the increase in the number of recipients and the increase in cost, and that's going to be this area right over here, which is this part of the graph."}, {"video_title": "Medicare sustainability   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that would be this part of the graph right over here. What part of this increased area is due purely to the increased number of recipients? Well, that would be this part of the graph right over here, purely due to the increased number of recipients, and that is right over here, effect of aging population. And then you have some part of this area that's created by both the increase in the number of recipients and the increase in cost, and that's going to be this area right over here, which is this part of the graph. So when people talk about the unsustainable, well, one, we have an unsustainable debt to begin with. The second thing is that the liabilities, the obligations that we have, these aren't even counted in the government deficit. And these are the things that are really, really scary because something has to give."}, {"video_title": "Does the president's party usually gain or lose seats at the midterm elections   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Does the President's Party usually gain or lose seats at the midterm elections? It's a pretty strong historical trend that the President's Party loses seats in the presidency. So that's particularly the case in the House of Representatives. Since the Civil War, about 93% of the time, the President's Party loses seats. Now sometimes they lose a lot of seats and the entire control of the House switches from controlling the President's Party to controlling the other party. In the Senate, it's a little less direct. About 70% of the time, the President's Party loses seats in a midterm election."}, {"video_title": "Does the president's party usually gain or lose seats at the midterm elections   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Since the Civil War, about 93% of the time, the President's Party loses seats. Now sometimes they lose a lot of seats and the entire control of the House switches from controlling the President's Party to controlling the other party. In the Senate, it's a little less direct. About 70% of the time, the President's Party loses seats in a midterm election. And this is often seen, and in more recent history, it's really seen as a kind of thumbs up or thumbs down vote on how the President is doing. The electorate reacting to whether they like or dislike what the President is doing. And in the two cases recently where the President's Party did pick up seats in Congress, it was in 1998 when the Republicans were seen to have overreached in their impeachment of Bill Clinton."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Hi, this is Kim from Khan Academy. Today we're learning more about the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to juries in civil cases when the value in controversy is greater than $20. To learn more about the Seventh Amendment, I talked with two experts. Renee Lerner is the Donald Philip Rothschild Research Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School. She specializes in U.S. and English legal history, and she's written extensively about the history of American juries. Suja Thomas is the Pierre and Sarah Peterson Professor of Law at the Illinois College of Law."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more about the Seventh Amendment, I talked with two experts. Renee Lerner is the Donald Philip Rothschild Research Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School. She specializes in U.S. and English legal history, and she's written extensively about the history of American juries. Suja Thomas is the Pierre and Sarah Peterson Professor of Law at the Illinois College of Law. Her research interests include jury provisions in the Bill of Rights, civil procedure, and employment law. So, Professor Thomas, can you tell us a little bit about why the framers were so interested in protecting this right in particular? Historically, there were juries in England, and a lot of our Constitution is based on what occurred in England, because, of course, that was our historical origin."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Suja Thomas is the Pierre and Sarah Peterson Professor of Law at the Illinois College of Law. Her research interests include jury provisions in the Bill of Rights, civil procedure, and employment law. So, Professor Thomas, can you tell us a little bit about why the framers were so interested in protecting this right in particular? Historically, there were juries in England, and a lot of our Constitution is based on what occurred in England, because, of course, that was our historical origin. And so colonists were really familiar with juries, and they knew that the jury restrained government and preserved liberty, and they also knew what could happen without juries. And so, because of this history, juries were really important to Americans, and they put it in the Declaration of Independence. And the framers, in general, were very enthusiastic about juries."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Historically, there were juries in England, and a lot of our Constitution is based on what occurred in England, because, of course, that was our historical origin. And so colonists were really familiar with juries, and they knew that the jury restrained government and preserved liberty, and they also knew what could happen without juries. And so, because of this history, juries were really important to Americans, and they put it in the Declaration of Independence. And the framers, in general, were very enthusiastic about juries. One of the reasons was that juries had been important in helping to nullify British laws that the American colonists didn't like. So an example of these laws is the customs taxes. These were taxes on shipping, and were very unpopular, especially in New England."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the framers, in general, were very enthusiastic about juries. One of the reasons was that juries had been important in helping to nullify British laws that the American colonists didn't like. So an example of these laws is the customs taxes. These were taxes on shipping, and were very unpopular, especially in New England. And what would happen is merchants, the Boston merchants, were supposed to pay a customs tax on merchandise that they imported into Boston, and also, in certain cases, exported. What would happen is these Boston merchants would try to import goods and not pay the tax. And sometimes they would get caught by customs inspectors."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These were taxes on shipping, and were very unpopular, especially in New England. And what would happen is merchants, the Boston merchants, were supposed to pay a customs tax on merchandise that they imported into Boston, and also, in certain cases, exported. What would happen is these Boston merchants would try to import goods and not pay the tax. And sometimes they would get caught by customs inspectors. If a customs inspector caught one of these merchants trying to smuggle in goods, the customs collector would seize the ship and the cargo and hold it essentially for ransom. The customs inspector would then bring an action, a lawsuit, against the ship and the cargo in a court called the Court of Admiralty, which was a type of court that sat without a jury. And the judge in the Court of Admiralty would ordinarily require the merchant to pay a large fine in order to get back his ship and his cargo."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And sometimes they would get caught by customs inspectors. If a customs inspector caught one of these merchants trying to smuggle in goods, the customs collector would seize the ship and the cargo and hold it essentially for ransom. The customs inspector would then bring an action, a lawsuit, against the ship and the cargo in a court called the Court of Admiralty, which was a type of court that sat without a jury. And the judge in the Court of Admiralty would ordinarily require the merchant to pay a large fine in order to get back his ship and his cargo. So what the Boston merchants started to do, they were deeply unhappy about these fines, they would bring an action in a court that sat with a jury. It was an action for trespass against the customs inspector. They knew that juries could be really useful because, for example, there was concerns about protecting litigants from bad laws, also concerns about actions by the executive, and they were also concerned about corrupt and biased judges so for all of these reasons, there was a real value put on civil juries."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the judge in the Court of Admiralty would ordinarily require the merchant to pay a large fine in order to get back his ship and his cargo. So what the Boston merchants started to do, they were deeply unhappy about these fines, they would bring an action in a court that sat with a jury. It was an action for trespass against the customs inspector. They knew that juries could be really useful because, for example, there was concerns about protecting litigants from bad laws, also concerns about actions by the executive, and they were also concerned about corrupt and biased judges so for all of these reasons, there was a real value put on civil juries. Just for our general information, how exactly is a civil trial different from a criminal trial? There's, when in a civil trial, someone is suing and wants damages for something that went wrong. So if, for example, you're in an employment situation and you allege your employer discriminated against you, you can bring a civil case and you can try to get damages or money for the wrong that was committed against you."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They knew that juries could be really useful because, for example, there was concerns about protecting litigants from bad laws, also concerns about actions by the executive, and they were also concerned about corrupt and biased judges so for all of these reasons, there was a real value put on civil juries. Just for our general information, how exactly is a civil trial different from a criminal trial? There's, when in a civil trial, someone is suing and wants damages for something that went wrong. So if, for example, you're in an employment situation and you allege your employer discriminated against you, you can bring a civil case and you can try to get damages or money for the wrong that was committed against you. In that type of case, people who are trying to prove the case have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that this is what happened to you, that discrimination occurred. Then in the criminal context, on the other hand, someone is accused of doing a crime and sometimes there's a grand jury that decides whether that case should proceed against you and then a criminal jury decides whether or not you committed that crime and they have to decide beyond a reasonable doubt. And so the standard is different."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if, for example, you're in an employment situation and you allege your employer discriminated against you, you can bring a civil case and you can try to get damages or money for the wrong that was committed against you. In that type of case, people who are trying to prove the case have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that this is what happened to you, that discrimination occurred. Then in the criminal context, on the other hand, someone is accused of doing a crime and sometimes there's a grand jury that decides whether that case should proceed against you and then a criminal jury decides whether or not you committed that crime and they have to decide beyond a reasonable doubt. And so the standard is different. It's for criminal cases, it's beyond a reasonable doubt versus in a civil case by a preponderance of the evidence. So it's a higher standard to prove someone is guilty of a crime than in a civil case to actually win. So you see this in the OJ Simpson case where he's not convicted, but they actually sued him in a civil case and they actually won and there were different standards."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the standard is different. It's for criminal cases, it's beyond a reasonable doubt versus in a civil case by a preponderance of the evidence. So it's a higher standard to prove someone is guilty of a crime than in a civil case to actually win. So you see this in the OJ Simpson case where he's not convicted, but they actually sued him in a civil case and they actually won and there were different standards. You kind of see throughout the fourth through eighth amendments, which deal with the protection of the accused, quite an emphasis on juries. So why were the framers so keen on juries? In the revolutionary era in particular, when tensions between the American colonies and Britain were very high, juries were one way that Americans could get popular representation in government."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you see this in the OJ Simpson case where he's not convicted, but they actually sued him in a civil case and they actually won and there were different standards. You kind of see throughout the fourth through eighth amendments, which deal with the protection of the accused, quite an emphasis on juries. So why were the framers so keen on juries? In the revolutionary era in particular, when tensions between the American colonies and Britain were very high, juries were one way that Americans could get popular representation in government. They were not allowed to elect members of the British parliament. They did elect members of the colonial legislatures, but increasingly the British government was taking power from the colonial legislatures. So this was a way that without an elected legislature, the colonists could get representation."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the revolutionary era in particular, when tensions between the American colonies and Britain were very high, juries were one way that Americans could get popular representation in government. They were not allowed to elect members of the British parliament. They did elect members of the colonial legislatures, but increasingly the British government was taking power from the colonial legislatures. So this was a way that without an elected legislature, the colonists could get representation. And John Adams wrote a very interesting passage in his diary in 1771. He wrote that juries were like popularly elected legislatures that they serve that function in the American colonies. There were some concerns about protection for debtors."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this was a way that without an elected legislature, the colonists could get representation. And John Adams wrote a very interesting passage in his diary in 1771. He wrote that juries were like popularly elected legislatures that they serve that function in the American colonies. There were some concerns about protection for debtors. That was a big issue at the time. And there were arguments that juries could really protect litigants from bad laws that the legislature passed from actions by the executive and from potentially corrupt and biased judges. So it wasn't the case that the framers believed that the jury was actually perfect, but they thought that the jury was the best decision maker."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There were some concerns about protection for debtors. That was a big issue at the time. And there were arguments that juries could really protect litigants from bad laws that the legislature passed from actions by the executive and from potentially corrupt and biased judges. So it wasn't the case that the framers believed that the jury was actually perfect, but they thought that the jury was the best decision maker. So it seems that the Seventh Amendment has a very specific origin in the history of the revolutionary war and in some things that were very dear to the founders. What are some of the ways that it has kind of grown and changed in the years since then? So there is, as you see in the amendment, a $20 amount in controversy requirement is what we call it."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it wasn't the case that the framers believed that the jury was actually perfect, but they thought that the jury was the best decision maker. So it seems that the Seventh Amendment has a very specific origin in the history of the revolutionary war and in some things that were very dear to the founders. What are some of the ways that it has kind of grown and changed in the years since then? So there is, as you see in the amendment, a $20 amount in controversy requirement is what we call it. And that remains in force today, even though there's been considerable inflation. And, but still we've stuck with the $20 limit. The difficulty is today that very, very few cases go to juries, and that is true of the federal courts and also the state courts."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So there is, as you see in the amendment, a $20 amount in controversy requirement is what we call it. And that remains in force today, even though there's been considerable inflation. And, but still we've stuck with the $20 limit. The difficulty is today that very, very few cases go to juries, and that is true of the federal courts and also the state courts. Yeah, that's one of the astounding things that many people don't know about, that less than 1% of civil cases, and we have the federal courts as well as the state courts, but in both of those venues, federal courts and state courts, less than 1% of civil cases are tried by juries. Wow, so what happened there? How did we get from a point where the majority of the cases went before a jury to less than 1%?"}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The difficulty is today that very, very few cases go to juries, and that is true of the federal courts and also the state courts. Yeah, that's one of the astounding things that many people don't know about, that less than 1% of civil cases, and we have the federal courts as well as the state courts, but in both of those venues, federal courts and state courts, less than 1% of civil cases are tried by juries. Wow, so what happened there? How did we get from a point where the majority of the cases went before a jury to less than 1%? One thing that's affected how many cases go to a jury is that judges now have more power to resolve disputes at an early stage. Parties can file a motion to dismiss the case if they argue that the other side did not have a claim that would hold up under law. Judges can dismiss a case if they find that that's correct."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How did we get from a point where the majority of the cases went before a jury to less than 1%? One thing that's affected how many cases go to a jury is that judges now have more power to resolve disputes at an early stage. Parties can file a motion to dismiss the case if they argue that the other side did not have a claim that would hold up under law. Judges can dismiss a case if they find that that's correct. And then around the 1930 period of time, you actually see a number of decisions against jury authority where the Supreme Court actually had ruled in favor of jury authority on the exact same issue. And so something's going on in this timeframe around the 1930 period of time, and it's not exactly easy to figure out what that is, but some of the things that I've seen in some of the public documents that are out there, you actually see comments, including by a former Supreme Court justice, saying that judges are actually better than juries. And a New York State judge stated around this time, yes, a judge should be preferred to a jury."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Judges can dismiss a case if they find that that's correct. And then around the 1930 period of time, you actually see a number of decisions against jury authority where the Supreme Court actually had ruled in favor of jury authority on the exact same issue. And so something's going on in this timeframe around the 1930 period of time, and it's not exactly easy to figure out what that is, but some of the things that I've seen in some of the public documents that are out there, you actually see comments, including by a former Supreme Court justice, saying that judges are actually better than juries. And a New York State judge stated around this time, yes, a judge should be preferred to a jury. And so that's certainly part of what's going on in the story and then part of what was going on in the story may be to do with the juries getting more diverse around this period of time. And maybe there's an effort by other certain parts of society to not want diverse juries to decide their cases. So these are just a couple of different ideas that I think are contributors to why juries decide few cases today."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And a New York State judge stated around this time, yes, a judge should be preferred to a jury. And so that's certainly part of what's going on in the story and then part of what was going on in the story may be to do with the juries getting more diverse around this period of time. And maybe there's an effort by other certain parts of society to not want diverse juries to decide their cases. So these are just a couple of different ideas that I think are contributors to why juries decide few cases today. Interesting, and so by this diversity, do you mean like diversity of people from different classes or different genders or different races? What kind of diversity is entering in that time period? Particularly, we're talking about, we'd be talking about sex and race, yeah, yeah."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So these are just a couple of different ideas that I think are contributors to why juries decide few cases today. Interesting, and so by this diversity, do you mean like diversity of people from different classes or different genders or different races? What kind of diversity is entering in that time period? Particularly, we're talking about, we'd be talking about sex and race, yeah, yeah. But I think class is definitely part of that today as well. And then another example that is something that I've spent a good amount of time in my career talking about is something called summary judgment. And so summary judgment is a procedure where a judge can decide what a reasonable jury could find."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Particularly, we're talking about, we'd be talking about sex and race, yeah, yeah. But I think class is definitely part of that today as well. And then another example that is something that I've spent a good amount of time in my career talking about is something called summary judgment. And so summary judgment is a procedure where a judge can decide what a reasonable jury could find. And if the judge decides a reasonable jury could not find for the person who brought the case, the judge can dismiss the case. So someone brings a case for employment discrimination and there's discovery and that is documents being exchanged between the parties and depositions or questions being asked between different witnesses. And so then an employer can say, okay, you accused us of employment discrimination, but we think you don't have enough evidence."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so summary judgment is a procedure where a judge can decide what a reasonable jury could find. And if the judge decides a reasonable jury could not find for the person who brought the case, the judge can dismiss the case. So someone brings a case for employment discrimination and there's discovery and that is documents being exchanged between the parties and depositions or questions being asked between different witnesses. And so then an employer can say, okay, you accused us of employment discrimination, but we think you don't have enough evidence. And judge, we think that no reasonable jury could find for this employee. You should order summary judgment for us and throw this case out of court. And what has actually happened is in over 70% of the cases where a employer makes a motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case, that case will be dismissed in whole or in part."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so then an employer can say, okay, you accused us of employment discrimination, but we think you don't have enough evidence. And judge, we think that no reasonable jury could find for this employee. You should order summary judgment for us and throw this case out of court. And what has actually happened is in over 70% of the cases where a employer makes a motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case, that case will be dismissed in whole or in part. So judges can in certain cases end the case before it gets to a jury. But by far the most common way that a dispute ends is by settlement between the parties. What has encouraged settlement is that it's much more expensive to bring a case and go to jury verdict today than it was back at the time of the founding."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what has actually happened is in over 70% of the cases where a employer makes a motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case, that case will be dismissed in whole or in part. So judges can in certain cases end the case before it gets to a jury. But by far the most common way that a dispute ends is by settlement between the parties. What has encouraged settlement is that it's much more expensive to bring a case and go to jury verdict today than it was back at the time of the founding. One of the reasons it's so much more expensive is that we now have a system of what we call discovery. That is the parties can ask for information from each other before the trial. They can formally question witnesses, they can ask for documents, they can require questions to be answered."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What has encouraged settlement is that it's much more expensive to bring a case and go to jury verdict today than it was back at the time of the founding. One of the reasons it's so much more expensive is that we now have a system of what we call discovery. That is the parties can ask for information from each other before the trial. They can formally question witnesses, they can ask for documents, they can require questions to be answered. All of that goes on before the trial and that's expensive to do. And they want to save money. They want to save money that's involved in this pretrial discovery and they want to save money at the trial."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They can formally question witnesses, they can ask for documents, they can require questions to be answered. All of that goes on before the trial and that's expensive to do. And they want to save money. They want to save money that's involved in this pretrial discovery and they want to save money at the trial. And so they go ahead and they settle. The reason it's so important for the parties to save money is that in our system, each side in a dispute in a case has to pay its own legal fees, even if they win. And so the parties have an incentive to settle the case."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They want to save money that's involved in this pretrial discovery and they want to save money at the trial. And so they go ahead and they settle. The reason it's so important for the parties to save money is that in our system, each side in a dispute in a case has to pay its own legal fees, even if they win. And so the parties have an incentive to settle the case. That way they save expenses and also they get a predictable result. Many parties are afraid of going before a jury because they don't know what the result will be. For all these reasons, settlement has become very important, much more so than it was at the time of the founding."}, {"video_title": "The Seventh Amendment   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the parties have an incentive to settle the case. That way they save expenses and also they get a predictable result. Many parties are afraid of going before a jury because they don't know what the result will be. For all these reasons, settlement has become very important, much more so than it was at the time of the founding. So we've learned that the Seventh Amendment's protections for jury trials in civil cases derives from the context of the Revolutionary War, when colonists felt that juries were perhaps the only way they could have a voice in the law. Despite this protection, fewer than 1% of civil cases go to trial today since trials have become prohibitively expensive and their outcomes are unpredictable. To learn more about the Seventh Amendment, visit the National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution and Khan Academy's resources on US government and politics."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We've talked about checks and balances. What we're going to talk about in this video is how people interface with the government, and in particular, what are the channels that allow them to communicate their preferences? So this is the government here, and of course the government is made up of people in the various branches, but let's say this is all of us as citizens, right over here. Now we're always interfacing with the government, or we're always interfacing with something that the government does. When we pay our taxes, we are interfacing with the government. When we try to, when we renew our passport, we are interfacing with the government. But what are the ways that we can communicate our preferences?"}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now we're always interfacing with the government, or we're always interfacing with something that the government does. When we pay our taxes, we are interfacing with the government. When we try to, when we renew our passport, we are interfacing with the government. But what are the ways that we can communicate our preferences? Well, one very obvious way is through elections. Obviously, we can vote someone in, we can vote someone out, we can tell the government, are we happy with what they've been doing, or are we not? What issues are important to us, and which issues are not?"}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what are the ways that we can communicate our preferences? Well, one very obvious way is through elections. Obviously, we can vote someone in, we can vote someone out, we can tell the government, are we happy with what they've been doing, or are we not? What issues are important to us, and which issues are not? Another institution that's considered a way to link the citizens or the people of a country with its government is the media, is the media. And I'll actually draw a two-way arrow here, because it's a way for the government to communicate with everyone else, and it's also a way for views to be heard and amplified, which the government might take note of. And these things would influence each other."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What issues are important to us, and which issues are not? Another institution that's considered a way to link the citizens or the people of a country with its government is the media, is the media. And I'll actually draw a two-way arrow here, because it's a way for the government to communicate with everyone else, and it's also a way for views to be heard and amplified, which the government might take note of. And these things would influence each other. Obviously, the media is capable of influencing elections. Now, another way is interest groups, another thing that we have talked about in previous videos. So this is interest groups, and it could actually be a two-way arrow, where, let me write this down, interest groups."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And these things would influence each other. Obviously, the media is capable of influencing elections. Now, another way is interest groups, another thing that we have talked about in previous videos. So this is interest groups, and it could actually be a two-way arrow, where, let me write this down, interest groups. And we could be talking about groups like AARP, the NAACP, or the NRA. People could be members of that or contribute to that interest group, and they are going to lobby the government. They're going to try to influence elections."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is interest groups, and it could actually be a two-way arrow, where, let me write this down, interest groups. And we could be talking about groups like AARP, the NAACP, or the NRA. People could be members of that or contribute to that interest group, and they are going to lobby the government. They're going to try to influence elections. They'll oftentimes participate in the media. And interest groups are also going the other way, where they're trying to get their members to go in one way or another, to adopt views of the interest group or maybe influence elections in ways that the interest group might like. The fourth major channel for the citizenry to have this connection with the government is through political parties."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They're going to try to influence elections. They'll oftentimes participate in the media. And interest groups are also going the other way, where they're trying to get their members to go in one way or another, to adopt views of the interest group or maybe influence elections in ways that the interest group might like. The fourth major channel for the citizenry to have this connection with the government is through political parties. Political parties. And these four different ways of connecting the government with people, ways for the people to communicate their preferences to the government, these are often listed in government classes, and collectively, they're known as linkage institutions. Linkage institutions."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The fourth major channel for the citizenry to have this connection with the government is through political parties. Political parties. And these four different ways of connecting the government with people, ways for the people to communicate their preferences to the government, these are often listed in government classes, and collectively, they're known as linkage institutions. Linkage institutions. And they're called that because they link people with their government. And what I'm going to focus on in this video in particular are political parties and the roles that they play. And we're all familiar with political parties in the United States."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Linkage institutions. And they're called that because they link people with their government. And what I'm going to focus on in this video in particular are political parties and the roles that they play. And we're all familiar with political parties in the United States. The two major political parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. But what do they fundamentally do? How do they play this role as linkage institutions?"}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And we're all familiar with political parties in the United States. The two major political parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. But what do they fundamentally do? How do they play this role as linkage institutions? Well, the parties will have their platforms. So each of your political parties will have a party platform. And I encourage you to do a web search for the party platform, the Democratic platform, or the Republican platform."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How do they play this role as linkage institutions? Well, the parties will have their platforms. So each of your political parties will have a party platform. And I encourage you to do a web search for the party platform, the Democratic platform, or the Republican platform. It's really interesting to read, especially when you see how 180-degree opposite two different groups could have on some very similar issues. But it's a way of saying, what do they believe in? And once they articulate this platform, it can have multiple effects."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I encourage you to do a web search for the party platform, the Democratic platform, or the Republican platform. It's really interesting to read, especially when you see how 180-degree opposite two different groups could have on some very similar issues. But it's a way of saying, what do they believe in? And once they articulate this platform, it can have multiple effects. It can influence the members of the party, because common citizens indeed do become affiliated with various parties. But it can also influence the politicians that are members of that party in government. So it can affect both of those."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And once they articulate this platform, it can have multiple effects. It can influence the members of the party, because common citizens indeed do become affiliated with various parties. But it can also influence the politicians that are members of that party in government. So it can affect both of those. Related to this idea of a party platform influencing citizens is this idea of voter mobilization and education. With an upcoming election, they'll go to people who are either already members of the party, who affiliate with a party, or who might be sympathetic to a party, and say, look, here are the big issues that are going to be affected by this upcoming election. Don't you care about it?"}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it can affect both of those. Related to this idea of a party platform influencing citizens is this idea of voter mobilization and education. With an upcoming election, they'll go to people who are either already members of the party, who affiliate with a party, or who might be sympathetic to a party, and say, look, here are the big issues that are going to be affected by this upcoming election. Don't you care about it? If you vote for the other person, these things are going to go against you. Let's educate you on our view of what is good for the local government, what is good for the state, what is good for the country. Political parties also do candidate recruitment."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Don't you care about it? If you vote for the other person, these things are going to go against you. Let's educate you on our view of what is good for the local government, what is good for the state, what is good for the country. Political parties also do candidate recruitment. A purist view of parties is, look, they care about changing the agenda or preserving an agenda, and so it's really important for them to field candidates that are capable of representing that agenda and capable of winning. If they don't do that, the political parties will eventually become irrelevant because if they don't have actual people who win elections and get into government, well, they'll also probably start losing followers because people don't like to be part of a party that really does not have much influence. And so political parties are always going out there and saying, okay, the opposition party has a candidate like this."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Political parties also do candidate recruitment. A purist view of parties is, look, they care about changing the agenda or preserving an agenda, and so it's really important for them to field candidates that are capable of representing that agenda and capable of winning. If they don't do that, the political parties will eventually become irrelevant because if they don't have actual people who win elections and get into government, well, they'll also probably start losing followers because people don't like to be part of a party that really does not have much influence. And so political parties are always going out there and saying, okay, the opposition party has a candidate like this. Here are the big issues on the table. Let's see if we can get a candidate that can really take advantage of the circumstances in that region and has a high chance of winning while at the same time really representing what the party believes in. A fourth thing that parties will do, and this is related to candidate recruitment, is campaign management, where you will have professional political operatives associated with political parties, and they'll go from, they might be involved even in the candidate recruitment, but once they get those candidates, they'll say, hey, we're gonna help you win."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so political parties are always going out there and saying, okay, the opposition party has a candidate like this. Here are the big issues on the table. Let's see if we can get a candidate that can really take advantage of the circumstances in that region and has a high chance of winning while at the same time really representing what the party believes in. A fourth thing that parties will do, and this is related to candidate recruitment, is campaign management, where you will have professional political operatives associated with political parties, and they'll go from, they might be involved even in the candidate recruitment, but once they get those candidates, they'll say, hey, we're gonna help you win. Now, a fifth major function of political parties, at least in the United States, just as these arrows from the party platform to the general electorate, this is really, this right over here really is that voter mobilization and that voter education. This arrow right over here, where the party platform is influencing the government as it operates, a lot of this happens through the committee and party leadership system in legislatures. You have roles like majority party leader, majority party whip, minority party leader, and a lot of what they are doing is trying to take that party platform, what the party wants done, and make sure that all of these folks in government, who just like the citizenry, don't always believe the exact same thing."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A fourth thing that parties will do, and this is related to candidate recruitment, is campaign management, where you will have professional political operatives associated with political parties, and they'll go from, they might be involved even in the candidate recruitment, but once they get those candidates, they'll say, hey, we're gonna help you win. Now, a fifth major function of political parties, at least in the United States, just as these arrows from the party platform to the general electorate, this is really, this right over here really is that voter mobilization and that voter education. This arrow right over here, where the party platform is influencing the government as it operates, a lot of this happens through the committee and party leadership system in legislatures. You have roles like majority party leader, majority party whip, minority party leader, and a lot of what they are doing is trying to take that party platform, what the party wants done, and make sure that all of these folks in government, who just like the citizenry, don't always believe the exact same thing. They might be representing very different regions, they might have different personal views, but to try to bring them in line with the party platform. And the idea is is that if they unify around things and have a united front, that they're going to have more influence. Now of course that can sometimes go the other way, where if both major parties are doing that, where it's all or nothing, you can get to a situation of gridlock, which we have talked about in other videos."}, {"video_title": "Linkage institutions and political parties   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have roles like majority party leader, majority party whip, minority party leader, and a lot of what they are doing is trying to take that party platform, what the party wants done, and make sure that all of these folks in government, who just like the citizenry, don't always believe the exact same thing. They might be representing very different regions, they might have different personal views, but to try to bring them in line with the party platform. And the idea is is that if they unify around things and have a united front, that they're going to have more influence. Now of course that can sometimes go the other way, where if both major parties are doing that, where it's all or nothing, you can get to a situation of gridlock, which we have talked about in other videos. But the big takeaway here, the common classification for the institutions that link the people to the government, linkage institutions that allow individuals to communicate their preferences to policy makers, are elections, the media, interest groups, and political parties. And political parties in particular, they have a platform, what do they represent? They mobilize and educate voters, they recruit candidates and manage their campaigns, and then once those candidates win, they have this leadership structure that tries to get them to be aligned, especially around that party platform."}, {"video_title": "Stare decisis and precedent in the Supreme Court   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The legislative branch, they make the laws and set the budgets, and then the Supreme Court can rule that a law is unconstitutional, or it can interpret laws in a specific case. And when the Supreme Court justices make these decisions, they try to follow the principle of stare decisis, which is Latin for let the decision stand. It's this idea of taking previous decisions as an example, and if we're in a similar case now, then let's use that decision as an example for this one. This is closely associated with the idea of precedent. Precedent in everyday language means something that has happened before, an action or a decision, that we can use as a guide or as an example. And that's exactly what the Supreme Court tries to do. If the Supreme Court has made a previous ruling on a similar case, that would be considered a precedent for this case."}, {"video_title": "Stare decisis and precedent in the Supreme Court   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is closely associated with the idea of precedent. Precedent in everyday language means something that has happened before, an action or a decision, that we can use as a guide or as an example. And that's exactly what the Supreme Court tries to do. If the Supreme Court has made a previous ruling on a similar case, that would be considered a precedent for this case. The Supreme Court has been often described as umpires, like umpires in a baseball game. Even Chief Justice John Roberts described it as such when he was being, during his confirmation hearings. And it's this idea that they should be these objective arbiters of what the truth is, of what is constitutional, what is not, what does the law actually mean."}, {"video_title": "Stare decisis and precedent in the Supreme Court   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If the Supreme Court has made a previous ruling on a similar case, that would be considered a precedent for this case. The Supreme Court has been often described as umpires, like umpires in a baseball game. Even Chief Justice John Roberts described it as such when he was being, during his confirmation hearings. And it's this idea that they should be these objective arbiters of what the truth is, of what is constitutional, what is not, what does the law actually mean. But we know in reality, these are human beings, and no matter how unbiased and no matter how objective they try to be, they still bring to the table their views and their experiences. And so even though this seems like a very clean process, there's definitely a large degree of subjectivity here. And because the executive branch, in particular the president, can appoint Supreme Court justices, there's definitely examples in history of changes in politics having long-term effects on changes in the Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "Stare decisis and precedent in the Supreme Court   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's this idea that they should be these objective arbiters of what the truth is, of what is constitutional, what is not, what does the law actually mean. But we know in reality, these are human beings, and no matter how unbiased and no matter how objective they try to be, they still bring to the table their views and their experiences. And so even though this seems like a very clean process, there's definitely a large degree of subjectivity here. And because the executive branch, in particular the president, can appoint Supreme Court justices, there's definitely examples in history of changes in politics having long-term effects on changes in the Supreme Court. For example, a significant case of overturning precedent happens from 1896 to 1954. In 1896, you have the Plessy versus Ferguson case that we cover in several other videos, where the then Supreme Court rules that laws that involve segregation are okay. But then you fast forward almost 60 years, and then the Supreme Court then, in Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, ruled that no, separate but equal is not constitutional, that segregation is not okay."}, {"video_title": "Stare decisis and precedent in the Supreme Court   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And because the executive branch, in particular the president, can appoint Supreme Court justices, there's definitely examples in history of changes in politics having long-term effects on changes in the Supreme Court. For example, a significant case of overturning precedent happens from 1896 to 1954. In 1896, you have the Plessy versus Ferguson case that we cover in several other videos, where the then Supreme Court rules that laws that involve segregation are okay. But then you fast forward almost 60 years, and then the Supreme Court then, in Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, ruled that no, separate but equal is not constitutional, that segregation is not okay. And this was influenced by this idea of, over time, you had presidents who were able to do, make judicial appointments to the Supreme Court, as members of the Supreme Court died or retired. It went through a Senate confirmation process. And then these justices have life tenure."}, {"video_title": "Stare decisis and precedent in the Supreme Court   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But then you fast forward almost 60 years, and then the Supreme Court then, in Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, ruled that no, separate but equal is not constitutional, that segregation is not okay. And this was influenced by this idea of, over time, you had presidents who were able to do, make judicial appointments to the Supreme Court, as members of the Supreme Court died or retired. It went through a Senate confirmation process. And then these justices have life tenure. They can stay on the Supreme Court until they pass away, or until they decide to retire. And so, many historians would say that this overturning of precedent was due to a change in politics from the 1930s through the early 1950s, when you had several terms of FDR, and then you have President Truman, who appointed justices to the Supreme Court that would eventually rule on Brown versus Board of Education, and they would be more pro-civil rights. And what's interesting about this is, even though presidents try to appoint folks who they believe would maybe vote the way they would, or have similar views, many times, it doesn't always work that way."}, {"video_title": "Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's make this a little bit concrete. And political scientists will sometimes have various classifications for these types of effects. So for example, there's something known as generational effects. And these would be events that affect an entire generation, that could influence how an entire generation thinks about their position on different issues. An example of that might be if you were to grow up or if you were an adult during the Great Depression in the 1930s, well that might affect you in many, many different ways. You would start to maybe be a little bit conservative with your own personal finances, realizing that a rainy day might come one day. Many people who grew up during the Great Depression viewed FDR, Franklin Roosevelt, as a major factor in taking the country out of the Great Depression."}, {"video_title": "Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And these would be events that affect an entire generation, that could influence how an entire generation thinks about their position on different issues. An example of that might be if you were to grow up or if you were an adult during the Great Depression in the 1930s, well that might affect you in many, many different ways. You would start to maybe be a little bit conservative with your own personal finances, realizing that a rainy day might come one day. Many people who grew up during the Great Depression viewed FDR, Franklin Roosevelt, as a major factor in taking the country out of the Great Depression. Other folks might disagree with that position. But if you were one of those folks who believed that FDR, through the expansion of government, helped bring the country out of the Great Depression, and if you believed that FDR was a good leader for the United States during World War II, well then you might lean Democrat, you might lean Democrat the rest of your life. And it indeed seems to be the case that many people who grew during the Great Depression did indeed lean Democrat because of their belief that FDR was good for the country."}, {"video_title": "Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Many people who grew up during the Great Depression viewed FDR, Franklin Roosevelt, as a major factor in taking the country out of the Great Depression. Other folks might disagree with that position. But if you were one of those folks who believed that FDR, through the expansion of government, helped bring the country out of the Great Depression, and if you believed that FDR was a good leader for the United States during World War II, well then you might lean Democrat, you might lean Democrat the rest of your life. And it indeed seems to be the case that many people who grew during the Great Depression did indeed lean Democrat because of their belief that FDR was good for the country. Similarly, if you grew up during the Cold War, if you were an adult during the Cold War, you had this thing hanging over you in the 60s, 70s, and 80s of what would a nuclear war with the Soviet Union look like? And so many of those folks might look at someone like a Ronald Reagan, who many people would argue helped bring about the end of the Cold War. And so many of these folks who did view Ronald Reagan as a major actor there might lean Republican."}, {"video_title": "Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it indeed seems to be the case that many people who grew during the Great Depression did indeed lean Democrat because of their belief that FDR was good for the country. Similarly, if you grew up during the Cold War, if you were an adult during the Cold War, you had this thing hanging over you in the 60s, 70s, and 80s of what would a nuclear war with the Soviet Union look like? And so many of those folks might look at someone like a Ronald Reagan, who many people would argue helped bring about the end of the Cold War. And so many of these folks who did view Ronald Reagan as a major actor there might lean Republican. Or even if they don't lean Republican, they might say, hey, the type of strong, muscular military presence with diplomacy that Ronald Reagan did, well, that's a type of point of view that I support. Now these two things were big macro events that would have happened over many, many years, if not decades, but there could also be particular events, and sometimes particular political events, that might influence someone's political ideology. So let me write this down, political, political events."}, {"video_title": "Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so many of these folks who did view Ronald Reagan as a major actor there might lean Republican. Or even if they don't lean Republican, they might say, hey, the type of strong, muscular military presence with diplomacy that Ronald Reagan did, well, that's a type of point of view that I support. Now these two things were big macro events that would have happened over many, many years, if not decades, but there could also be particular events, and sometimes particular political events, that might influence someone's political ideology. So let me write this down, political, political events. And so an example of that might be the Watergate scandal under Richard Nixon. Many of the people who were adults then and understood what was going on, it might have led to a general distrust in government. It might have led to more of a belief that people in high office do things without telling us."}, {"video_title": "Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let me write this down, political, political events. And so an example of that might be the Watergate scandal under Richard Nixon. Many of the people who were adults then and understood what was going on, it might have led to a general distrust in government. It might have led to more of a belief that people in high office do things without telling us. Once again, these are not, it's not gonna be everyone who lived in that time period, but it might make some folks lean one direction or another. Now everything I've talked about has been in the realm of politics, but there's also a lot that happens in culture that could affect your ideology. If you see more of a certain point of view on television, for example, or in movies, that might make you more sympathetic to that point of view."}, {"video_title": "Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It might have led to more of a belief that people in high office do things without telling us. Once again, these are not, it's not gonna be everyone who lived in that time period, but it might make some folks lean one direction or another. Now everything I've talked about has been in the realm of politics, but there's also a lot that happens in culture that could affect your ideology. If you see more of a certain point of view on television, for example, or in movies, that might make you more sympathetic to that point of view. You also have effects over the course of your life that affect your ideology, and so these are often known as life cycle effects. Life cycle effects. And this is the idea that as you go from being young to getting older, just different things in your life might make you lean in one direction or another."}, {"video_title": "Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you see more of a certain point of view on television, for example, or in movies, that might make you more sympathetic to that point of view. You also have effects over the course of your life that affect your ideology, and so these are often known as life cycle effects. Life cycle effects. And this is the idea that as you go from being young to getting older, just different things in your life might make you lean in one direction or another. And these are going to be broad generalizations. But let's say you are young, you are in college, you have a lot of student debt. You might lean maybe towards a more progressive candidate or have liberal leanings if a candidate's saying, hey, the government's going to try to reduce student debt or provide more support for young students."}, {"video_title": "Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is the idea that as you go from being young to getting older, just different things in your life might make you lean in one direction or another. And these are going to be broad generalizations. But let's say you are young, you are in college, you have a lot of student debt. You might lean maybe towards a more progressive candidate or have liberal leanings if a candidate's saying, hey, the government's going to try to reduce student debt or provide more support for young students. But then as you get older, and maybe you become a homeowner, maybe you have more wealth, you have a higher income, you might say, hey, these taxes really hurt more than I suspected, and they're quite large. Or maybe you're starting a business, and you're saying, hey, these regulations really aren't as good of an idea as I thought they were when I was young. Well then maybe you might, and I stress might, you might start lean more conservative."}, {"video_title": "Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You might lean maybe towards a more progressive candidate or have liberal leanings if a candidate's saying, hey, the government's going to try to reduce student debt or provide more support for young students. But then as you get older, and maybe you become a homeowner, maybe you have more wealth, you have a higher income, you might say, hey, these taxes really hurt more than I suspected, and they're quite large. Or maybe you're starting a business, and you're saying, hey, these regulations really aren't as good of an idea as I thought they were when I was young. Well then maybe you might, and I stress might, you might start lean more conservative. So I'll leave you there. The big picture is is that your political ideology isn't just driven by your genetics or your family, and we've talked about these in other videos, or where you grew up, so not just driven by geography. It's driven by a whole set of things, many of the things that might happen to you individually."}, {"video_title": "Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well then maybe you might, and I stress might, you might start lean more conservative. So I'll leave you there. The big picture is is that your political ideology isn't just driven by your genetics or your family, and we've talked about these in other videos, or where you grew up, so not just driven by geography. It's driven by a whole set of things, many of the things that might happen to you individually. Let's say you had a bad incident with crime that might make you tougher on crime. Or maybe you're on the other side. You got arrested for something you didn't do."}, {"video_title": "How does voter turnout in midterms compare to presidential elections   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How does voter turnout in midterms compare to presidential elections? Traditionally, midterm elections have been years in which the voter turnout is much lower than a presidential election. And particularly in recent history, where the American political scene has been really dominated by the president. We can start that really with John F. Kennedy, when he became a celebrity president. And really, everybody increasingly has just sort of seen American political activity originating and swirling around a president. And so if they're interested in the president, well, they turn out for the presidential election. But in the off-year elections, in the midterms, well, the president's not really on the ballot, even if some people tend to see the elections as a referendum on his presidency."}, {"video_title": "How does voter turnout in midterms compare to presidential elections   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We can start that really with John F. Kennedy, when he became a celebrity president. And really, everybody increasingly has just sort of seen American political activity originating and swirling around a president. And so if they're interested in the president, well, they turn out for the presidential election. But in the off-year elections, in the midterms, well, the president's not really on the ballot, even if some people tend to see the elections as a referendum on his presidency. So people turn out in lower numbers. We've also seen a trend, and it may be upturned in 2018, but a trend where Republican voters who tend to be older participate in the voting in midterm elections more than younger voters who tend to vote Democratic, or voters of color who vote for the Democratic Party as well. It's always been one of the challenges for Democrats to get their team to turn out and vote in these midterm elections."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, you'll remember that one of the issues that the Electoral College was trying to solve was the idea that perhaps the revolution and the concept of democracy had gone too far in the United States and needed to be reigned in by the more elite class of American citizens who would be better able to make political decisions. But the flip side of this was whether the revolution had perhaps not gone far enough in that it didn't abolish the institution of slavery. Now, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had sharply divided opinions over slavery. Those who came from Southern states tended to be elite white men who were themselves slave owners, their own fortunes deeply tied into the institution of slavery. In the aftermath of the revolution, many Northern states began to either outlaw or phase out slavery, recognizing that it was incompatible with the system of government defined around the concept that all men are created equal. But if they were going to replace the Articles of Confederation, they were going to have to find a way forward. And I would say overall, the slave owners got their way more than not."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Those who came from Southern states tended to be elite white men who were themselves slave owners, their own fortunes deeply tied into the institution of slavery. In the aftermath of the revolution, many Northern states began to either outlaw or phase out slavery, recognizing that it was incompatible with the system of government defined around the concept that all men are created equal. But if they were going to replace the Articles of Confederation, they were going to have to find a way forward. And I would say overall, the slave owners got their way more than not. Now, one anti-slavery aspect of the Constitution was that it outlawed the international slave trade starting in 1808. So here in Article I, it states that, the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding $10 for each person. So they say, we'll give the international slave trade 20 years and then we'll get rid of it."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I would say overall, the slave owners got their way more than not. Now, one anti-slavery aspect of the Constitution was that it outlawed the international slave trade starting in 1808. So here in Article I, it states that, the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding $10 for each person. So they say, we'll give the international slave trade 20 years and then we'll get rid of it. And indeed, on January 1st, 1808, the international slave trade was outlawed in the United States. So this middle passage in which enslaved Africans were taken from West Africa and brought across the Atlantic, the end would never be in the United States. But this doesn't mean that they outlawed slavery and it doesn't mean that they outlawed the domestic slave trade, the trade in slaves between states or within states."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they say, we'll give the international slave trade 20 years and then we'll get rid of it. And indeed, on January 1st, 1808, the international slave trade was outlawed in the United States. So this middle passage in which enslaved Africans were taken from West Africa and brought across the Atlantic, the end would never be in the United States. But this doesn't mean that they outlawed slavery and it doesn't mean that they outlawed the domestic slave trade, the trade in slaves between states or within states. In fact, up until about 1850, one of the largest slave markets in the United States was just around the corner from the White House and the US Capitol. So imagine walking on the streets of Washington, DC and seeing these buildings where democratic ideals are enshrined and then going around the corner and seeing women and children and men being sold and families being torn apart. It's a very powerful image."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But this doesn't mean that they outlawed slavery and it doesn't mean that they outlawed the domestic slave trade, the trade in slaves between states or within states. In fact, up until about 1850, one of the largest slave markets in the United States was just around the corner from the White House and the US Capitol. So imagine walking on the streets of Washington, DC and seeing these buildings where democratic ideals are enshrined and then going around the corner and seeing women and children and men being sold and families being torn apart. It's a very powerful image. But although the framers did agree to phase out the international slave trade, they made another compromise that was much more favorable to slaveholders, the 3 5ths Compromise. Now you'll remember that in deciding how the legislative branch would represent the population, in the Great Compromise or Connecticut Compromise, they agreed that in the House of Representatives, the proportion of representatives would be based on population, whereas in the Senate, every state would have two senators regardless of its size. Now the big question for this is, who counts as part of the population?"}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's a very powerful image. But although the framers did agree to phase out the international slave trade, they made another compromise that was much more favorable to slaveholders, the 3 5ths Compromise. Now you'll remember that in deciding how the legislative branch would represent the population, in the Great Compromise or Connecticut Compromise, they agreed that in the House of Representatives, the proportion of representatives would be based on population, whereas in the Senate, every state would have two senators regardless of its size. Now the big question for this is, who counts as part of the population? Is it just white men? Or do the large enslaved populations of southern states also count? Now if you were a southern slaveholder, you would have been strongly in favor of counting this population because it means you get more representation and thus more power in the House of Representatives."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now the big question for this is, who counts as part of the population? Is it just white men? Or do the large enslaved populations of southern states also count? Now if you were a southern slaveholder, you would have been strongly in favor of counting this population because it means you get more representation and thus more power in the House of Representatives. If you were against slavery or from a small state or both, you would have been bitterly opposed to the notion that people who have no rights as citizens should be counted as citizens to give those states more power in Congress. So here's what they decided according to Article 1. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now if you were a southern slaveholder, you would have been strongly in favor of counting this population because it means you get more representation and thus more power in the House of Representatives. If you were against slavery or from a small state or both, you would have been bitterly opposed to the notion that people who have no rights as citizens should be counted as citizens to give those states more power in Congress. So here's what they decided according to Article 1. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. Well, this three-fifths of all other persons really means enslaved Africans. And you'll notice that the framers are really talking around slavery. In the part about the international slave trade, they said, migration of such persons."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. Well, this three-fifths of all other persons really means enslaved Africans. And you'll notice that the framers are really talking around slavery. In the part about the international slave trade, they said, migration of such persons. Now they say three-fifths of all other persons. In fact, the word slavery never appears in the original Constitution. So why do they say three-fifths of all other persons or migration of such persons as states think it proper to admit?"}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the part about the international slave trade, they said, migration of such persons. Now they say three-fifths of all other persons. In fact, the word slavery never appears in the original Constitution. So why do they say three-fifths of all other persons or migration of such persons as states think it proper to admit? And honestly, I think the answer to this is that the framers were ashamed of slavery. They were ashamed that this institution existed in a democratic society. They knew that the eyes of the world, the eyes of history would look at this document."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So why do they say three-fifths of all other persons or migration of such persons as states think it proper to admit? And honestly, I think the answer to this is that the framers were ashamed of slavery. They were ashamed that this institution existed in a democratic society. They knew that the eyes of the world, the eyes of history would look at this document. And this institution completely sullied the idea of a democratic government. So as it says here, their agreement was that for every five enslaved people who lived in a state, three of them would be counted for the purposes of population. This is a huge victory for slaveholders."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They knew that the eyes of the world, the eyes of history would look at this document. And this institution completely sullied the idea of a democratic government. So as it says here, their agreement was that for every five enslaved people who lived in a state, three of them would be counted for the purposes of population. This is a huge victory for slaveholders. Getting more power in Congress for having people who can't vote, who can't be citizens. Why did the delegates of other states allow this to happen? I think the simple answer is that the Constitution would not have been ratified were it not for this compromise, among others."}, {"video_title": "Constitutional compromises The Three-Fifths Compromise   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is a huge victory for slaveholders. Getting more power in Congress for having people who can't vote, who can't be citizens. Why did the delegates of other states allow this to happen? I think the simple answer is that the Constitution would not have been ratified were it not for this compromise, among others. The states of the South were too important to getting that nine out of 13 necessary votes to replace the Articles of Confederation with this new Constitution. So they made a compromise to make sure that the Constitution was ratified and improved. But that compromise would have tremendous consequences for the generations of enslaved people who would live under that system."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, there were more than 200 proposed amendments, which were whittled down to just 12. That's right, 12, not 10. So, what were those two proposed amendments that weren't ratified along with the other 10, the unadopted amendments? To learn more, I talked to Fergus Bordewich. He's a writer and historian, and the author of The First Congress, How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government. These unadopted amendments, which weren't included in the Bill of Rights, aren't nearly as well-known. So, what were they?"}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more, I talked to Fergus Bordewich. He's a writer and historian, and the author of The First Congress, How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government. These unadopted amendments, which weren't included in the Bill of Rights, aren't nearly as well-known. So, what were they? Well, to put it in context, there were more than 200 amendments originally proposed during the First Congress. James Madison had the responsibility of winnowing those 200 down to a manageable number. He compressed them finally down to 19, then to 17, and finally to 12."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So, what were they? Well, to put it in context, there were more than 200 amendments originally proposed during the First Congress. James Madison had the responsibility of winnowing those 200 down to a manageable number. He compressed them finally down to 19, then to 17, and finally to 12. 12 were approved by the First Congress. 10 of them are the ones that we today call the Bill of Rights, but nobody then referred to them as the Bill of Rights. Madison and other members of the First Congress referred to them as adjustments of the Constitution, alterations of the Constitution, and sometimes as amendments."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He compressed them finally down to 19, then to 17, and finally to 12. 12 were approved by the First Congress. 10 of them are the ones that we today call the Bill of Rights, but nobody then referred to them as the Bill of Rights. Madison and other members of the First Congress referred to them as adjustments of the Constitution, alterations of the Constitution, and sometimes as amendments. But the term Bill of Rights only came into use in the 20th century. Really? I had no idea."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Madison and other members of the First Congress referred to them as adjustments of the Constitution, alterations of the Constitution, and sometimes as amendments. But the term Bill of Rights only came into use in the 20th century. Really? I had no idea. Members of the First Congress often talked about the lack of a Bill of Rights, and they referred to bills of rights that some states had. But the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were not treated as a Bill of Rights. In fact, those who most wanted a Bill of Rights said this isn't one."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I had no idea. Members of the First Congress often talked about the lack of a Bill of Rights, and they referred to bills of rights that some states had. But the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were not treated as a Bill of Rights. In fact, those who most wanted a Bill of Rights said this isn't one. Okay, so we end up with 12 adjustments to the Constitution, but in today's Bill of Rights, there are only 10. So what were those other two? One of them had to do with the apportionment of seats in Congress."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, those who most wanted a Bill of Rights said this isn't one. Okay, so we end up with 12 adjustments to the Constitution, but in today's Bill of Rights, there are only 10. So what were those other two? One of them had to do with the apportionment of seats in Congress. How many seats would there be, and how many people would each member of the House of Representatives represent? That was one amendment. The other had to do with the method of providing salaries for members of the Senate and the House of Representatives."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One of them had to do with the apportionment of seats in Congress. How many seats would there be, and how many people would each member of the House of Representatives represent? That was one amendment. The other had to do with the method of providing salaries for members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. All right, so we have the text of these two unadopted amendments here. One says, after the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every 30,000 until the number shall amount to 100, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than 100 representatives nor less than one representative for every 40,000 persons until the number of representatives shall amount to 200, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than 200 representatives nor more than one representative for every 50,000 persons. Whew, okay, so it seems like the general gist here is setting up a proportional arrangement about the House of Representatives."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The other had to do with the method of providing salaries for members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. All right, so we have the text of these two unadopted amendments here. One says, after the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every 30,000 until the number shall amount to 100, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than 100 representatives nor less than one representative for every 40,000 persons until the number of representatives shall amount to 200, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than 200 representatives nor more than one representative for every 50,000 persons. Whew, okay, so it seems like the general gist here is setting up a proportional arrangement about the House of Representatives. The other one's a little bit shorter. It says, no law varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened. So you can't change how much senators and representatives get paid without an election in between."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Whew, okay, so it seems like the general gist here is setting up a proportional arrangement about the House of Representatives. The other one's a little bit shorter. It says, no law varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened. So you can't change how much senators and representatives get paid without an election in between. So they can't raise their own salaries. So why did these two amendments end up on the cutting room floor? Well, bear in mind that both of these were approved by Congress."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you can't change how much senators and representatives get paid without an election in between. So they can't raise their own salaries. So why did these two amendments end up on the cutting room floor? Well, bear in mind that both of these were approved by Congress. Then they went out to the states. They had to be ratified by the states. The states ratified the other 10 that we're all familiar with."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, bear in mind that both of these were approved by Congress. Then they went out to the states. They had to be ratified by the states. The states ratified the other 10 that we're all familiar with. They almost ratified the amendment having to do with the apportionment of seats in Congress. That ratification fell short by one state, the other one having to do with the salaries of Congress, although it was very uncontroversial. It simply didn't generate enough interest to be ratified."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The states ratified the other 10 that we're all familiar with. They almost ratified the amendment having to do with the apportionment of seats in Congress. That ratification fell short by one state, the other one having to do with the salaries of Congress, although it was very uncontroversial. It simply didn't generate enough interest to be ratified. The two amendments which failed to be ratified were the only two that strictly do not have to do with rights. And I don't think that there was a very passionate concern for them among the voting public. Did the Constitution need to be amended in order to establish a process for setting members' salaries?"}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It simply didn't generate enough interest to be ratified. The two amendments which failed to be ratified were the only two that strictly do not have to do with rights. And I don't think that there was a very passionate concern for them among the voting public. Did the Constitution need to be amended in order to establish a process for setting members' salaries? Well, no, it didn't. It didn't. We know that it did not."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Did the Constitution need to be amended in order to establish a process for setting members' salaries? Well, no, it didn't. It didn't. We know that it did not. Was it necessary to amend the Constitution to set a principle of apportionment? Well, apparently not. And I think, by and large, Americans and our representatives recognize principles that rise to the level of constitutional amendment."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We know that it did not. Was it necessary to amend the Constitution to set a principle of apportionment? Well, apparently not. And I think, by and large, Americans and our representatives recognize principles that rise to the level of constitutional amendment. With respect to these two amendments, neither of them really has to do with rights. And that's why we somewhat misunderstand them if a role is referred to a bill of rights, because these two are not rights. They're essentially more in the order of congressional housekeeping."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I think, by and large, Americans and our representatives recognize principles that rise to the level of constitutional amendment. With respect to these two amendments, neither of them really has to do with rights. And that's why we somewhat misunderstand them if a role is referred to a bill of rights, because these two are not rights. They're essentially more in the order of congressional housekeeping. There was virtually no debate in Congress at all about the proposed amendment that would enable Congress to provide salaries for members. Everybody thought this is a pretty good idea. In point of fact, as we all know, in the 200 years plus since then, congressional salaries have been raised by legislation when needed."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They're essentially more in the order of congressional housekeeping. There was virtually no debate in Congress at all about the proposed amendment that would enable Congress to provide salaries for members. Everybody thought this is a pretty good idea. In point of fact, as we all know, in the 200 years plus since then, congressional salaries have been raised by legislation when needed. It turned out that the amendment absolutely wasn't necessary, even though it was finally ratified in 1992. Now, there was a great deal of debate, however, over the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. In the first House of Representatives, there were only 59 members."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In point of fact, as we all know, in the 200 years plus since then, congressional salaries have been raised by legislation when needed. It turned out that the amendment absolutely wasn't necessary, even though it was finally ratified in 1992. Now, there was a great deal of debate, however, over the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. In the first House of Representatives, there were only 59 members. They represented districts of widely varying size. For example, one representative from Georgia represented 16,000 people. A representative from the Maine district of Massachusetts, Maine was not a separate state then, represented 96,000."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the first House of Representatives, there were only 59 members. They represented districts of widely varying size. For example, one representative from Georgia represented 16,000 people. A representative from the Maine district of Massachusetts, Maine was not a separate state then, represented 96,000. The debate, the sharpest debate, was over how many individuals would a given member of the House represent. They had to come up with a number. It wasn't obvious what the number should be."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A representative from the Maine district of Massachusetts, Maine was not a separate state then, represented 96,000. The debate, the sharpest debate, was over how many individuals would a given member of the House represent. They had to come up with a number. It wasn't obvious what the number should be. So the debate really was over whether each representative would represent 30,000 or 40,000. This doesn't sound important today, but our country was much smaller, obviously, much smaller. And these were fairly big numbers for the time."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It wasn't obvious what the number should be. So the debate really was over whether each representative would represent 30,000 or 40,000. This doesn't sound important today, but our country was much smaller, obviously, much smaller. And these were fairly big numbers for the time. Those who argued for each representative representing 30,000 wanted a larger House of Representatives. It was a more populist kind of idea. The people who argued most forcefully for it were anti-federalists."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And these were fairly big numbers for the time. Those who argued for each representative representing 30,000 wanted a larger House of Representatives. It was a more populist kind of idea. The people who argued most forcefully for it were anti-federalists. That's to say, those are the people who really didn't like the Constitution at all. They didn't even want it. They wanted what they saw as a more democratic House of Representatives."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The people who argued most forcefully for it were anti-federalists. That's to say, those are the people who really didn't like the Constitution at all. They didn't even want it. They wanted what they saw as a more democratic House of Representatives. More conservative members argued for a smaller House of Representatives based on the idea that the larger it would be, the less manageable it would be. James Madison himself was very hostile to the idea of a larger House of Representatives, arguing that it would be a step towards tyranny because a body too large would fall victim to demagogues. This is really fascinating because even if we had gone with 30,000 or 40,000, today the House of Representatives would have more than 10,000 people in it."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They wanted what they saw as a more democratic House of Representatives. More conservative members argued for a smaller House of Representatives based on the idea that the larger it would be, the less manageable it would be. James Madison himself was very hostile to the idea of a larger House of Representatives, arguing that it would be a step towards tyranny because a body too large would fall victim to demagogues. This is really fascinating because even if we had gone with 30,000 or 40,000, today the House of Representatives would have more than 10,000 people in it. But today we only have 435 representatives in the House. So how did we get from there to here? Well, Congress did provide for the incremental increase in the size of congressional districts, knowing that population would increase."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is really fascinating because even if we had gone with 30,000 or 40,000, today the House of Representatives would have more than 10,000 people in it. But today we only have 435 representatives in the House. So how did we get from there to here? Well, Congress did provide for the incremental increase in the size of congressional districts, knowing that population would increase. Everybody knew it was going to increase. Nobody in 1789 or 1790 could imagine a country of 200 million people. The outermost number that they contemplated in 1790 was about 200."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, Congress did provide for the incremental increase in the size of congressional districts, knowing that population would increase. Everybody knew it was going to increase. Nobody in 1789 or 1790 could imagine a country of 200 million people. The outermost number that they contemplated in 1790 was about 200. We now know it's 435. Over time in the 19th century, as we admitted more states, we added more population and more representatives. The politics of stopping it at 435 is frankly a little intricate."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The outermost number that they contemplated in 1790 was about 200. We now know it's 435. Over time in the 19th century, as we admitted more states, we added more population and more representatives. The politics of stopping it at 435 is frankly a little intricate. But at any rate, the number continued to increase through the 19th century into the 20th century. There was no reapportionment after the census of 1920. The Republicans, who dominated in Congress at the time, worried that reapportioning after 1920 would increase the number of Democrats."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The politics of stopping it at 435 is frankly a little intricate. But at any rate, the number continued to increase through the 19th century into the 20th century. There was no reapportionment after the census of 1920. The Republicans, who dominated in Congress at the time, worried that reapportioning after 1920 would increase the number of Democrats. It became a partisan issue. There was no reapportionment until later in the 1920s when it was stopped at 435. And since then, there's basically been a consensus that this is a manageable number."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Republicans, who dominated in Congress at the time, worried that reapportioning after 1920 would increase the number of Democrats. It became a partisan issue. There was no reapportionment until later in the 1920s when it was stopped at 435. And since then, there's basically been a consensus that this is a manageable number. One of these amendments actually reappeared and was passed in 1992. Can you tell us a little bit about the story of this lost amendment? Yeah, it's a cute story."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And since then, there's basically been a consensus that this is a manageable number. One of these amendments actually reappeared and was passed in 1992. Can you tell us a little bit about the story of this lost amendment? Yeah, it's a cute story. A student at the University of Texas in the 1980s was writing a paper for a history class and stumbled across this long forgotten amendment and wrote about it and was given, I believe, a C grade for it because his professor considered the subject irrelevant and inconsequential. His name was Gregory Watson. And he was so, I think, frustrated by the grade, but also inspired by the story of this forgotten amendment that he began to wage initially a one man or one student lobbying campaign."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, it's a cute story. A student at the University of Texas in the 1980s was writing a paper for a history class and stumbled across this long forgotten amendment and wrote about it and was given, I believe, a C grade for it because his professor considered the subject irrelevant and inconsequential. His name was Gregory Watson. And he was so, I think, frustrated by the grade, but also inspired by the story of this forgotten amendment that he began to wage initially a one man or one student lobbying campaign. And astonishingly enough, within a decade, nearly every state ratified that amendment, all but four states. So it has now since 92 been an amendment to the Constitution, frankly, and not a very relevant one because Congress has raised congressional salaries by ordinary legislation for more than 200 years. They didn't really need the amendment to do so."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he was so, I think, frustrated by the grade, but also inspired by the story of this forgotten amendment that he began to wage initially a one man or one student lobbying campaign. And astonishingly enough, within a decade, nearly every state ratified that amendment, all but four states. So it has now since 92 been an amendment to the Constitution, frankly, and not a very relevant one because Congress has raised congressional salaries by ordinary legislation for more than 200 years. They didn't really need the amendment to do so. Looking back over the history of constitutional amendments, you see that they kind of come in bunches. There are the 10 that come immediately after the adoption of the Constitution. Then there are the Reconstruction amendments that come right after the Civil War."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They didn't really need the amendment to do so. Looking back over the history of constitutional amendments, you see that they kind of come in bunches. There are the 10 that come immediately after the adoption of the Constitution. Then there are the Reconstruction amendments that come right after the Civil War. And then there are the Progressive Era amendments, ones like Prohibition or Women's Right to Vote. Then there's been kind of a lull in constitutional amendments. This 1992 amendment is the 27th and final."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then there are the Reconstruction amendments that come right after the Civil War. And then there are the Progressive Era amendments, ones like Prohibition or Women's Right to Vote. Then there's been kind of a lull in constitutional amendments. This 1992 amendment is the 27th and final. So are there more amendments coming? And if so, what might they be about? Well, it's very difficult to amend the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This 1992 amendment is the 27th and final. So are there more amendments coming? And if so, what might they be about? Well, it's very difficult to amend the Constitution. That's one reason there are so few. There are other countries which have immensely long constitutions and amend them all the time. We are extremely conservative as a nation, historically, in tampering with or altering our constitutions."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, it's very difficult to amend the Constitution. That's one reason there are so few. There are other countries which have immensely long constitutions and amend them all the time. We are extremely conservative as a nation, historically, in tampering with or altering our constitutions. Let's look at a couple of recent ones. There was the Equal Rights Amendment, an amendment to guarantee across the board equal rights to women, which almost passed. I believe it fell short by only one state back in the 1970s."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We are extremely conservative as a nation, historically, in tampering with or altering our constitutions. Let's look at a couple of recent ones. There was the Equal Rights Amendment, an amendment to guarantee across the board equal rights to women, which almost passed. I believe it fell short by only one state back in the 1970s. And that came within a hair of being ratified. Another amendment that had some vigor in it in recent years was one to provide a voting member for the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is not a state."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I believe it fell short by only one state back in the 1970s. And that came within a hair of being ratified. Another amendment that had some vigor in it in recent years was one to provide a voting member for the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is not a state. It's a unique entity. The Constitution does not provide for the seat of government to be a state. So it's very tricky, legally and constitutionally."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The District of Columbia is not a state. It's a unique entity. The Constitution does not provide for the seat of government to be a state. So it's very tricky, legally and constitutionally. What is the District of Columbia? There was a proposed amendment that would enable DC to have a voting member. I think both of these amendments, which were proposed but were not ratified, may return."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it's very tricky, legally and constitutionally. What is the District of Columbia? There was a proposed amendment that would enable DC to have a voting member. I think both of these amendments, which were proposed but were not ratified, may return. I do think at some point DC will be given a status that enables it to have voting representation in Congress. I'm not sure what the formula will be. There is a renewed effort underway currently to reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I think both of these amendments, which were proposed but were not ratified, may return. I do think at some point DC will be given a status that enables it to have voting representation in Congress. I'm not sure what the formula will be. There is a renewed effort underway currently to reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment. And I think as women increasingly have a higher profile and more influence politically, that the possibility of that one day becoming an amendment to the Constitution is foreseeable. One thing that we haven't discussed so far is that when the Bill of Rights originally was passed, it only applied to the federal government, not to the states. How does that intersect with these unadopted amendments?"}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There is a renewed effort underway currently to reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment. And I think as women increasingly have a higher profile and more influence politically, that the possibility of that one day becoming an amendment to the Constitution is foreseeable. One thing that we haven't discussed so far is that when the Bill of Rights originally was passed, it only applied to the federal government, not to the states. How does that intersect with these unadopted amendments? Very important point. James Madison, who did more than any other member of Congress to shape what we now call the Bill of Rights, Madison argued that these amendments should also apply, and especially the protections of civil rights that we find in the First Amendment and others, that they should apply to states. He argued vigorously that they should be meant to apply to states, and he failed."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How does that intersect with these unadopted amendments? Very important point. James Madison, who did more than any other member of Congress to shape what we now call the Bill of Rights, Madison argued that these amendments should also apply, and especially the protections of civil rights that we find in the First Amendment and others, that they should apply to states. He argued vigorously that they should be meant to apply to states, and he failed. He wanted that to be explicit in the Bill of Rights. It is not, because the power of states' rights within Congress was still so great in 1790 that states would not accept it. When did that change?"}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He argued vigorously that they should be meant to apply to states, and he failed. He wanted that to be explicit in the Bill of Rights. It is not, because the power of states' rights within Congress was still so great in 1790 that states would not accept it. When did that change? The Reconstruction Era amendments, designed initially to provide rights for black Americans, for African Americans coming out of slavery, made clear that the Bill of Rights had to be applied across the board in states. Was it, practically speaking? No, it wasn't, in point of fact."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When did that change? The Reconstruction Era amendments, designed initially to provide rights for black Americans, for African Americans coming out of slavery, made clear that the Bill of Rights had to be applied across the board in states. Was it, practically speaking? No, it wasn't, in point of fact. Those Reconstruction amendments were largely disregarded and ignored for many, many years, until the 20th century Civil Rights Movement, particularly beginning in the 1950s, began to put federal muscle behind the enforcement of those amendments. And here we're specifically discussing the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, which was passed after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship rights to African Americans, but was really, as we know from the Jim Crow laws, something that existed on paper, but not in reality. And it took the work of civil rights groups and federal enforcement to make these rights that existed on paper a reality."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "No, it wasn't, in point of fact. Those Reconstruction amendments were largely disregarded and ignored for many, many years, until the 20th century Civil Rights Movement, particularly beginning in the 1950s, began to put federal muscle behind the enforcement of those amendments. And here we're specifically discussing the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, which was passed after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship rights to African Americans, but was really, as we know from the Jim Crow laws, something that existed on paper, but not in reality. And it took the work of civil rights groups and federal enforcement to make these rights that existed on paper a reality. Yeah, absolutely correct. It's really a modern notion. When I say modern, I mean a 20th century notion that all Americans should expect to have equal rights in practice under the law."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it took the work of civil rights groups and federal enforcement to make these rights that existed on paper a reality. Yeah, absolutely correct. It's really a modern notion. When I say modern, I mean a 20th century notion that all Americans should expect to have equal rights in practice under the law. In the 19th century, equal rights were not enforced, regardless of what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights says. And without a federal government committed to it, they won't be enforced. So we've learned that there were more than 200 proposed amendments to the US Constitution that James Madison whittled down to just 12."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When I say modern, I mean a 20th century notion that all Americans should expect to have equal rights in practice under the law. In the 19th century, equal rights were not enforced, regardless of what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights says. And without a federal government committed to it, they won't be enforced. So we've learned that there were more than 200 proposed amendments to the US Constitution that James Madison whittled down to just 12. And of those, only 10 were ratified at the time of the framing. The unadopted amendments show us just how important ratification is to the amendment process. Even if an amendment is proposed and passed by Congress or a special convention of the states, to become law, three quarters of the states must ratify it, which is really hard to do."}, {"video_title": "Unadopted amendments to the Bill of Rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So we've learned that there were more than 200 proposed amendments to the US Constitution that James Madison whittled down to just 12. And of those, only 10 were ratified at the time of the framing. The unadopted amendments show us just how important ratification is to the amendment process. Even if an amendment is proposed and passed by Congress or a special convention of the states, to become law, three quarters of the states must ratify it, which is really hard to do. What do you think the next constitutional amendment will be? The Equal Rights Amendment, representation for the District of Columbia, or something completely different? To learn more about the Bill of Rights, check out the National Constitution Center's interactive constitution and Khan Academy's resources on US government and politics."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's also a professor of law at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, and runs the Center for Competitive Politics. So we're here to talk about what seems like a very important Supreme Court case, Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission in 2010. Could you give a little bit of background on what got us to this Supreme Court decision? Well, the federal government, specifically Congress, gets to pass laws that regulate the financing of federal elections, and then for state and local elections, that would be an issue for each state. And so Congress for, actually going back more than a century, has passed laws limiting the amount of money, the kinds of money that can be raised, what has to be disclosed. They pass a whole bunch of laws, and these laws are sometimes challenged as being unconstitutional. The usual challenge is that the law violates part of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and association."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the federal government, specifically Congress, gets to pass laws that regulate the financing of federal elections, and then for state and local elections, that would be an issue for each state. And so Congress for, actually going back more than a century, has passed laws limiting the amount of money, the kinds of money that can be raised, what has to be disclosed. They pass a whole bunch of laws, and these laws are sometimes challenged as being unconstitutional. The usual challenge is that the law violates part of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and association. And the specific issue in the Citizens United case had to do with the First Amendment rights of corporations to spend money to support or oppose candidates for federal office. Well, it is an important case, but it is a widely misunderstood case. The case, for example, is not about the question of whether, quote, corporations are people."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The usual challenge is that the law violates part of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and association. And the specific issue in the Citizens United case had to do with the First Amendment rights of corporations to spend money to support or oppose candidates for federal office. Well, it is an important case, but it is a widely misunderstood case. The case, for example, is not about the question of whether, quote, corporations are people. We sometimes hear that. Not a single justice on the court in any of the opinions addressed us that issue, because it's a longstanding doctrine of corporate personhood, that corporations have certain rights, certain rights that people have, and they join together to associate. The case is not about the question of whether money equals speech."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The case, for example, is not about the question of whether, quote, corporations are people. We sometimes hear that. Not a single justice on the court in any of the opinions addressed us that issue, because it's a longstanding doctrine of corporate personhood, that corporations have certain rights, certain rights that people have, and they join together to associate. The case is not about the question of whether money equals speech. The court has long held, not that money is speech, but that you can't try to limit an activity, which would be protected under the Constitution, like speech, by limiting money. For example, you could not say it shall be illegal to spend any money in the United States to publish a book or to pay an author or to operate a bookstore, right? So if you were, say, General Motors or Google, and you wanted to put an ad online or on TV or in a newspaper that says, support President Smith for re-election, that would be illegal if it was paid for with money from the corporation."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The case is not about the question of whether money equals speech. The court has long held, not that money is speech, but that you can't try to limit an activity, which would be protected under the Constitution, like speech, by limiting money. For example, you could not say it shall be illegal to spend any money in the United States to publish a book or to pay an author or to operate a bookstore, right? So if you were, say, General Motors or Google, and you wanted to put an ad online or on TV or in a newspaper that says, support President Smith for re-election, that would be illegal if it was paid for with money from the corporation. Corporations could still participate, but they'd have to set up a separate committee called a political action committee or PAC, and they could only solicit certain people to put money into that PAC, and they couldn't take money that they made from selling cars or software or something like that and use it for political purposes. And in Citizens United, reversing some earlier cases, the Supreme Court said that corporations, like individuals, have a First Amendment right to spend independently supporting or opposing candidates for office, and that it would be unconstitutional to limit this because it would be too much of an infringement on the speech rights of corporations. It's about what rights people have to engage in speech when they have chosen to organize as a corporation."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if you were, say, General Motors or Google, and you wanted to put an ad online or on TV or in a newspaper that says, support President Smith for re-election, that would be illegal if it was paid for with money from the corporation. Corporations could still participate, but they'd have to set up a separate committee called a political action committee or PAC, and they could only solicit certain people to put money into that PAC, and they couldn't take money that they made from selling cars or software or something like that and use it for political purposes. And in Citizens United, reversing some earlier cases, the Supreme Court said that corporations, like individuals, have a First Amendment right to spend independently supporting or opposing candidates for office, and that it would be unconstitutional to limit this because it would be too much of an infringement on the speech rights of corporations. It's about what rights people have to engage in speech when they have chosen to organize as a corporation. So the court makes the holding that corporations and unions have constitutional protection under the First Amendment when they make independent expenditures to advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. And by independent expenditures, we don't say that they can contribute money directly to candidate campaigns, but they are free to spend their own money to communicate with the public at large and say, we think you should vote for this candidate or against this candidate for these reasons. And that, I think, in a nutshell, is what the case is about at that highest level."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's about what rights people have to engage in speech when they have chosen to organize as a corporation. So the court makes the holding that corporations and unions have constitutional protection under the First Amendment when they make independent expenditures to advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. And by independent expenditures, we don't say that they can contribute money directly to candidate campaigns, but they are free to spend their own money to communicate with the public at large and say, we think you should vote for this candidate or against this candidate for these reasons. And that, I think, in a nutshell, is what the case is about at that highest level. So just to get a little bit more into the case, it's really all around this bipartisan campaign reform act, the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. What was all that about? And then how did that lead eventually to this Supreme Court decision of Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission?"}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that, I think, in a nutshell, is what the case is about at that highest level. So just to get a little bit more into the case, it's really all around this bipartisan campaign reform act, the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. What was all that about? And then how did that lead eventually to this Supreme Court decision of Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission? Well, in some ways it goes back much further than the bipartisan campaign reform act. We should note that Congress in 1907 passed the first federal statute that limited corporate contributions to campaigns, right? But corporations quickly found out, well, we can just do expenditures."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then how did that lead eventually to this Supreme Court decision of Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission? Well, in some ways it goes back much further than the bipartisan campaign reform act. We should note that Congress in 1907 passed the first federal statute that limited corporate contributions to campaigns, right? But corporations quickly found out, well, we can just do expenditures. We don't contribute to the campaign. We just spend our own money. But within this framework, both corporations and unions could do a lot of things."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But corporations quickly found out, well, we can just do expenditures. We don't contribute to the campaign. We just spend our own money. But within this framework, both corporations and unions could do a lot of things. For example, they could run ads that said things like, you know, Congressman Jones is a no good, anti-worker, worker-lying, you know, person who wants to destroy American industry. Call Congressman Jones and tell him we don't need his agenda in Washington. And that didn't count as a campaign expenditure because it didn't specifically urge people to vote for or against a candidate."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But within this framework, both corporations and unions could do a lot of things. For example, they could run ads that said things like, you know, Congressman Jones is a no good, anti-worker, worker-lying, you know, person who wants to destroy American industry. Call Congressman Jones and tell him we don't need his agenda in Washington. And that didn't count as a campaign expenditure because it didn't specifically urge people to vote for or against a candidate. So President Bush signed a law, President George W. Bush signed a law called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. And this was in 2002, I believe it was. And it's commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Law because those were the two big Senate sponsors."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that didn't count as a campaign expenditure because it didn't specifically urge people to vote for or against a candidate. So President Bush signed a law, President George W. Bush signed a law called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. And this was in 2002, I believe it was. And it's commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Law because those were the two big Senate sponsors. And the National Rifle Association, Senator McConnell, a bunch of people sued and argued it was unconstitutional. While the case was going through the courts, the National Rifle Association, which definitely has a political point of view, set up a satellite radio station called NRA News. And they said, oh, well, if news organizations can engage in this unlimited kind of electoral activity, we'll just make ourselves a news organization."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Law because those were the two big Senate sponsors. And the National Rifle Association, Senator McConnell, a bunch of people sued and argued it was unconstitutional. While the case was going through the courts, the National Rifle Association, which definitely has a political point of view, set up a satellite radio station called NRA News. And they said, oh, well, if news organizations can engage in this unlimited kind of electoral activity, we'll just make ourselves a news organization. And many people thought this was gonna be a kind of sham way of just running political ads all the time. Well, what happened was that the NRA News actually started having news programs, opinion programs, call-in programs, not just on the election, but on issues that would matter to people who were sympathetic to the NRA. And it actually became a bona fide news organization."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they said, oh, well, if news organizations can engage in this unlimited kind of electoral activity, we'll just make ourselves a news organization. And many people thought this was gonna be a kind of sham way of just running political ads all the time. Well, what happened was that the NRA News actually started having news programs, opinion programs, call-in programs, not just on the election, but on issues that would matter to people who were sympathetic to the NRA. And it actually became a bona fide news organization. So the McCain-Feingold Law, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, as it's officially known, attempted to close this alleged or perceived loophole by saying, okay, a corporation can't, or union, can't even mention a candidate in a broadcast ad within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary election. So enter a group called Citizens United. Citizens United is an ideological group that is doing political activity, still around, and they had made a documentary called Hillary the Movie."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it actually became a bona fide news organization. So the McCain-Feingold Law, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, as it's officially known, attempted to close this alleged or perceived loophole by saying, okay, a corporation can't, or union, can't even mention a candidate in a broadcast ad within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary election. So enter a group called Citizens United. Citizens United is an ideological group that is doing political activity, still around, and they had made a documentary called Hillary the Movie. This was coming out at the time, not of the past election that we just had, but back in 2008, in that period, when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were going to be competing for the nomination, for the Democratic nomination to be president in the 2008 period. And Citizens United is a non-profit corporation. That is, they're not selling shoes."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Citizens United is an ideological group that is doing political activity, still around, and they had made a documentary called Hillary the Movie. This was coming out at the time, not of the past election that we just had, but back in 2008, in that period, when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were going to be competing for the nomination, for the Democratic nomination to be president in the 2008 period. And Citizens United is a non-profit corporation. That is, they're not selling shoes. They're just using the corporate form to be able to engage in associational activity. And there had already been a rule well before the Supreme Court had established, which said, if you're an ideological corporation and you don't take money from for-profit companies, you can already spend whatever money you have in your treasury on political ads and political activity. But Citizens United deliberately took money from for-profit corporations, and they did it because they were trying to set up a test case."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That is, they're not selling shoes. They're just using the corporate form to be able to engage in associational activity. And there had already been a rule well before the Supreme Court had established, which said, if you're an ideological corporation and you don't take money from for-profit companies, you can already spend whatever money you have in your treasury on political ads and political activity. But Citizens United deliberately took money from for-profit corporations, and they did it because they were trying to set up a test case. What they wanted to do was to take this documentary they had made, Hillary the Movie, which said very negative things about Hillary Clinton, and they wanted to pay Comcast Cable a million dollars to make this movie available as a video on demand, which anyone could watch by choosing it from the guide on their cable guide, and they'd be able to watch it. And under the federal statute, the Federal Election Commission said, this looks like it's going to be on television, broadcast in the period close to the election, and it's going to feature the name Hillary Clinton, who's a candidate for president. That would make it an election ad, cannot be paid for by corporate funds."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But Citizens United deliberately took money from for-profit corporations, and they did it because they were trying to set up a test case. What they wanted to do was to take this documentary they had made, Hillary the Movie, which said very negative things about Hillary Clinton, and they wanted to pay Comcast Cable a million dollars to make this movie available as a video on demand, which anyone could watch by choosing it from the guide on their cable guide, and they'd be able to watch it. And under the federal statute, the Federal Election Commission said, this looks like it's going to be on television, broadcast in the period close to the election, and it's going to feature the name Hillary Clinton, who's a candidate for president. That would make it an election ad, cannot be paid for by corporate funds. There were lots of ways that the Supreme Court could have gone aside from overturning earlier cases, but the court was bold here, and on a five to four vote, the liberals on the court against the conservatives, the conservatives won, and the longstanding federal prohibition on corporations and labor unions as well, spending money in federal elections fell. So just as a lay citizen, on the face of it, I understand why there's all of this congressional legislation, you're afraid of undue influence from corporations, but we were able to talk to a few experts who I think took a more sympathetic view to the Supreme Court ruling, and their point was, Citizens United was this organization, it definitely had an ideological point of view, and it was making this content that was clearly anti-Hillary Clinton, but there's many organizations, media organizations, I think we could point to news channels, websites, which most people would consider to be news organizations or media organizations that do definitely lean one way or the other, left or right, and they are arguing that the reason why the Supreme Court had to rule this way is if Citizens United wasn't allowed, then whether you're talking about an MSNBC or Fox News, that would start putting them under scrutiny. Well, the law that limited what corporations can do created an exemption for press organizations that were engaged in journalistic kinds of activities, and indeed, the majority on the court said, yeah, we have to treat them the same."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That would make it an election ad, cannot be paid for by corporate funds. There were lots of ways that the Supreme Court could have gone aside from overturning earlier cases, but the court was bold here, and on a five to four vote, the liberals on the court against the conservatives, the conservatives won, and the longstanding federal prohibition on corporations and labor unions as well, spending money in federal elections fell. So just as a lay citizen, on the face of it, I understand why there's all of this congressional legislation, you're afraid of undue influence from corporations, but we were able to talk to a few experts who I think took a more sympathetic view to the Supreme Court ruling, and their point was, Citizens United was this organization, it definitely had an ideological point of view, and it was making this content that was clearly anti-Hillary Clinton, but there's many organizations, media organizations, I think we could point to news channels, websites, which most people would consider to be news organizations or media organizations that do definitely lean one way or the other, left or right, and they are arguing that the reason why the Supreme Court had to rule this way is if Citizens United wasn't allowed, then whether you're talking about an MSNBC or Fox News, that would start putting them under scrutiny. Well, the law that limited what corporations can do created an exemption for press organizations that were engaged in journalistic kinds of activities, and indeed, the majority on the court said, yeah, we have to treat them the same. The justices expressed real concern about the nature of the government's argument. They said, you know, you're saying it's just you can limit broadcast ads, but what about internet? Could you limit communications about candidates over the internet?"}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the law that limited what corporations can do created an exemption for press organizations that were engaged in journalistic kinds of activities, and indeed, the majority on the court said, yeah, we have to treat them the same. The justices expressed real concern about the nature of the government's argument. They said, you know, you're saying it's just you can limit broadcast ads, but what about internet? Could you limit communications about candidates over the internet? And the government attorneys eventually said, yes, we can. We can limit anything that involves a corporation speaking about a candidate for office, whether it's on the internet or whatever, and by the time the oral argument was over, the government had asserted that it would have the right, for example, to limit the publication of a book that included one line of advocacy urging people to vote for a candidate at the very end of a long 500-page book. They had suggested that they could prohibit a union from publishing a pamphlet that advocated the election of a candidate."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Could you limit communications about candidates over the internet? And the government attorneys eventually said, yes, we can. We can limit anything that involves a corporation speaking about a candidate for office, whether it's on the internet or whatever, and by the time the oral argument was over, the government had asserted that it would have the right, for example, to limit the publication of a book that included one line of advocacy urging people to vote for a candidate at the very end of a long 500-page book. They had suggested that they could prohibit a union from publishing a pamphlet that advocated the election of a candidate. You could envision a candidate, something like why working Americans should support Hillary Clinton for president or something like that. They had suggested that books over Kindle could be banned under existing law, and so the Supreme Court said, all right, this is very problematic to us. They scheduled it for a second oral argument, heard the case again, and at the end of the case said, you know, we don't think that this is right, at least a majority did, said you cannot limit the speech of a group of people or a body simply because it is incorporated."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They had suggested that they could prohibit a union from publishing a pamphlet that advocated the election of a candidate. You could envision a candidate, something like why working Americans should support Hillary Clinton for president or something like that. They had suggested that books over Kindle could be banned under existing law, and so the Supreme Court said, all right, this is very problematic to us. They scheduled it for a second oral argument, heard the case again, and at the end of the case said, you know, we don't think that this is right, at least a majority did, said you cannot limit the speech of a group of people or a body simply because it is incorporated. But there was an argument of the dissenters that said the press is different. The press serves an educational and informative function, which is different than the function of other corporations, and it's permissible, maybe in part because the Constitution does provide separate protection for the press, and there's a big debate about what that means, that to carve this out. Now, that does create an inconsistency."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They scheduled it for a second oral argument, heard the case again, and at the end of the case said, you know, we don't think that this is right, at least a majority did, said you cannot limit the speech of a group of people or a body simply because it is incorporated. But there was an argument of the dissenters that said the press is different. The press serves an educational and informative function, which is different than the function of other corporations, and it's permissible, maybe in part because the Constitution does provide separate protection for the press, and there's a big debate about what that means, that to carve this out. Now, that does create an inconsistency. We'd be saying we're gonna treat Google one way and Fox News and The New York Times another, but the current law is also inconsistent. So let me give you an example from the other side, which I think is very hard for those who support Citizens United to answer. In a case that came a couple of years after Citizens United, there was a guy who was a Canadian law student, then he became a lawyer in New York."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, that does create an inconsistency. We'd be saying we're gonna treat Google one way and Fox News and The New York Times another, but the current law is also inconsistent. So let me give you an example from the other side, which I think is very hard for those who support Citizens United to answer. In a case that came a couple of years after Citizens United, there was a guy who was a Canadian law student, then he became a lawyer in New York. He went to Harvard Law School, worked in New York, and he was here on a work visa, and he wanted to, according to his complaint that he filed, he wanted to go to Kinko's and make flyers, spend 50 cents making flyers saying, reelect President Obama. And he wanted to hand those flyers out in Central Park. Well, because he was not a citizen, even though he's in the United States and has other kinds of First Amendment rights, even though he's not a citizen, he would violate federal law."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In a case that came a couple of years after Citizens United, there was a guy who was a Canadian law student, then he became a lawyer in New York. He went to Harvard Law School, worked in New York, and he was here on a work visa, and he wanted to, according to his complaint that he filed, he wanted to go to Kinko's and make flyers, spend 50 cents making flyers saying, reelect President Obama. And he wanted to hand those flyers out in Central Park. Well, because he was not a citizen, even though he's in the United States and has other kinds of First Amendment rights, even though he's not a citizen, he would violate federal law. He could go to jail for years, face a $10,000 fine if he hands that piece of paper to one person, because then he'd be engaging in election-related activity as a non-citizen. And this case went up, and the Supreme Court had a chance to explain why, as it said in Citizens United, if the identity of the speaker doesn't matter and the First Amendment really is always about more speech all the time in elections, why is it that this guy, Benjamin Blumen, could be shut up? And the Supreme Court didn't even hear the case."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, because he was not a citizen, even though he's in the United States and has other kinds of First Amendment rights, even though he's not a citizen, he would violate federal law. He could go to jail for years, face a $10,000 fine if he hands that piece of paper to one person, because then he'd be engaging in election-related activity as a non-citizen. And this case went up, and the Supreme Court had a chance to explain why, as it said in Citizens United, if the identity of the speaker doesn't matter and the First Amendment really is always about more speech all the time in elections, why is it that this guy, Benjamin Blumen, could be shut up? And the Supreme Court didn't even hear the case. It came up on a special kind of appeal from a three-judge court, which means that when the court declined to hear the case, it agreed that the lower court was right, that this law is constitutional. So we now have this new anomaly, which is that we say that non-human entities, these corporations that only exist because the state allows you to create this fake thing, non-human entities have these First Amendment rights, but yet a human being who is living in New York who wants to spend 50 cents, he couldn't do that. And so what's the difference?"}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the Supreme Court didn't even hear the case. It came up on a special kind of appeal from a three-judge court, which means that when the court declined to hear the case, it agreed that the lower court was right, that this law is constitutional. So we now have this new anomaly, which is that we say that non-human entities, these corporations that only exist because the state allows you to create this fake thing, non-human entities have these First Amendment rights, but yet a human being who is living in New York who wants to spend 50 cents, he couldn't do that. And so what's the difference? If it's really true that the identity of the speaker doesn't matter, which is what the Supreme Court said in Citizens United, well certainly the identity of the speaker matters when that speaker is a foreign individual or a foreign government or a foreign corporation. So it seems like the majority opinion, they're not saying that large corporations being able to funnel tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for or against a campaign, independently of the candidate, that that won't necessarily corrupt, but it's more of by trying to regulate it in the way that the McCain-Feingold Act does, it actually has far-reaching consequences, or trying to regulate it in the way that the Federal Election Commission was trying to regulate it with Citizens United, it has far-reaching consequences that touch on just general free speech issues, like what you just talked about, a sentence in a book that happens to be published or sold during the election, or a movie made by a random filmmaker. I think for one thing, for example, a lot of people, again, they resent this idea, corporations aren't people, but they don't realize corporations have always, again, had some of these rights, acted as corporations, and acted in the political arena in a variety of ways, and I think what these people should ask themselves is, well, if Exxon were not incorporated, would they go, oh, well, Exxon's not incorporated, well, that's fine, let them spend all the money they want, right, and conversely, I find most of these people, if you say, well, should we be able to censor the New York Times, it's a corporation, they say, well, no, no, no, not that, and when you see that, I think it makes people realize the question is not really whether it's a corporation speaking or not, the question is whether or not we think the First Amendment protects the expenditure of money."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so what's the difference? If it's really true that the identity of the speaker doesn't matter, which is what the Supreme Court said in Citizens United, well certainly the identity of the speaker matters when that speaker is a foreign individual or a foreign government or a foreign corporation. So it seems like the majority opinion, they're not saying that large corporations being able to funnel tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for or against a campaign, independently of the candidate, that that won't necessarily corrupt, but it's more of by trying to regulate it in the way that the McCain-Feingold Act does, it actually has far-reaching consequences, or trying to regulate it in the way that the Federal Election Commission was trying to regulate it with Citizens United, it has far-reaching consequences that touch on just general free speech issues, like what you just talked about, a sentence in a book that happens to be published or sold during the election, or a movie made by a random filmmaker. I think for one thing, for example, a lot of people, again, they resent this idea, corporations aren't people, but they don't realize corporations have always, again, had some of these rights, acted as corporations, and acted in the political arena in a variety of ways, and I think what these people should ask themselves is, well, if Exxon were not incorporated, would they go, oh, well, Exxon's not incorporated, well, that's fine, let them spend all the money they want, right, and conversely, I find most of these people, if you say, well, should we be able to censor the New York Times, it's a corporation, they say, well, no, no, no, not that, and when you see that, I think it makes people realize the question is not really whether it's a corporation speaking or not, the question is whether or not we think the First Amendment protects the expenditure of money. We actually had to have rules before Citizens United to differentiate, because we actually, this was the law that Google and General Motors could not spend their funds directly on election speech, but the New York Times and Fox News could, and so we had tests, and the Federal Election Commission had tests, and there are just some disagreements about how to best do it. I would point to the work of Professor Sonia West at the University of Georgia, who's written extensively on this, and she said the test should be people who are regularly engaged in journalism. That doesn't mean it has to be objective and you can't have a point of view, it doesn't mean there's a problem with Fox News or MSNBC, because they might have a point of view, but it means you're doing something other than electioneering."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I think for one thing, for example, a lot of people, again, they resent this idea, corporations aren't people, but they don't realize corporations have always, again, had some of these rights, acted as corporations, and acted in the political arena in a variety of ways, and I think what these people should ask themselves is, well, if Exxon were not incorporated, would they go, oh, well, Exxon's not incorporated, well, that's fine, let them spend all the money they want, right, and conversely, I find most of these people, if you say, well, should we be able to censor the New York Times, it's a corporation, they say, well, no, no, no, not that, and when you see that, I think it makes people realize the question is not really whether it's a corporation speaking or not, the question is whether or not we think the First Amendment protects the expenditure of money. We actually had to have rules before Citizens United to differentiate, because we actually, this was the law that Google and General Motors could not spend their funds directly on election speech, but the New York Times and Fox News could, and so we had tests, and the Federal Election Commission had tests, and there are just some disagreements about how to best do it. I would point to the work of Professor Sonia West at the University of Georgia, who's written extensively on this, and she said the test should be people who are regularly engaged in journalism. That doesn't mean it has to be objective and you can't have a point of view, it doesn't mean there's a problem with Fox News or MSNBC, because they might have a point of view, but it means you're doing something other than electioneering. I do think that to some extent, yes, that's what I'm saying, that these are some of the cost of having a vibrant, robust First Amendment, and if you want to give the government the power to regulate books and movies, you should think about who is the politician you most hate? Is it Hillary Clinton, is it Donald Trump, is it somebody else? Do you want them in charge of deciding who gets to speak out in politics and in what way and in what fashion and what manner?"}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That doesn't mean it has to be objective and you can't have a point of view, it doesn't mean there's a problem with Fox News or MSNBC, because they might have a point of view, but it means you're doing something other than electioneering. I do think that to some extent, yes, that's what I'm saying, that these are some of the cost of having a vibrant, robust First Amendment, and if you want to give the government the power to regulate books and movies, you should think about who is the politician you most hate? Is it Hillary Clinton, is it Donald Trump, is it somebody else? Do you want them in charge of deciding who gets to speak out in politics and in what way and in what fashion and what manner? And I think you should think about it in those terms, and that sometimes makes people realize maybe it's best to let things go. Now, I would say, however, having said that, that a lot of the arguments about corporate influence are vastly overblown. There's quite a bit of debate, really, about whether or not corporations, in fact, benefit from spending money on politics."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Do you want them in charge of deciding who gets to speak out in politics and in what way and in what fashion and what manner? And I think you should think about it in those terms, and that sometimes makes people realize maybe it's best to let things go. Now, I would say, however, having said that, that a lot of the arguments about corporate influence are vastly overblown. There's quite a bit of debate, really, about whether or not corporations, in fact, benefit from spending money on politics. Corporations, big corporations, the really, you know, the Fortune 500 types, what they really like to do is spend money on lobbying. That's much more direct, they can talk to candidates directly, they can let other people elect folks. There's almost certain to be some folks elected who they will like, and they can go work with those people and craft messages and bills, and they can do this more behind the scenes, and that way they don't have to offend any of their customers who don't like the party that they're supporting."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's quite a bit of debate, really, about whether or not corporations, in fact, benefit from spending money on politics. Corporations, big corporations, the really, you know, the Fortune 500 types, what they really like to do is spend money on lobbying. That's much more direct, they can talk to candidates directly, they can let other people elect folks. There's almost certain to be some folks elected who they will like, and they can go work with those people and craft messages and bills, and they can do this more behind the scenes, and that way they don't have to offend any of their customers who don't like the party that they're supporting. But it's also clear that just spending money doesn't automatically win elections. You can look at the last presidential election. I mean, Donald Trump spent about, all told, about a quarter of what the Hillary Clinton forces spent."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's almost certain to be some folks elected who they will like, and they can go work with those people and craft messages and bills, and they can do this more behind the scenes, and that way they don't have to offend any of their customers who don't like the party that they're supporting. But it's also clear that just spending money doesn't automatically win elections. You can look at the last presidential election. I mean, Donald Trump spent about, all told, about a quarter of what the Hillary Clinton forces spent. It certainly helps to have money, but in the end, it's not dispositive. What the money does is it's spent to try to inform voters, and those voters go out and vote at the polls. So we've learned that in Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that political spending by corporations, associations, and labor unions is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment."}, {"video_title": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I mean, Donald Trump spent about, all told, about a quarter of what the Hillary Clinton forces spent. It certainly helps to have money, but in the end, it's not dispositive. What the money does is it's spent to try to inform voters, and those voters go out and vote at the polls. So we've learned that in Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that political spending by corporations, associations, and labor unions is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. But whether or how the government can limit free speech and campaign contributions is still a matter of debate. As Rick Hasen notes, one test for the difference between the free speech rights accorded to journalists and those of corporations might be whether they are entities regularly engaged in journalism. But as Bradley Smith points out, allowing the government to impose limits on how people or corporations speak out in politics may lead to unintended consequences."}, {"video_title": "Selective incorporation   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you are already likely familiar that the first 10 amendments of the United States Constitution are the Bill of Rights. Bill of Rights. And especially the first eight of these are all about protecting individuals' rights. So you have those rights. And then there's a question. To what degree are these rights protected against state laws? And this became a little bit clearer once the 14th Amendment came along."}, {"video_title": "Selective incorporation   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you have those rights. And then there's a question. To what degree are these rights protected against state laws? And this became a little bit clearer once the 14th Amendment came along. And just to remind ourselves, here's section one of the 14th Amendment, and we really wanna zero in on the Due Process Clause, which says, \"'Nor shall any state deprive any person \"'of life, liberty, or property \"'without due process of law.'\" Now, some have argued for total incorporation that says, hey, look, the 14th Amendment's making it clear that the state cannot infringe on these rights. But what has happened, especially in the United States Supreme Court, is that on various decisions, maybe this was something involving the Fifth Amendment, they've ruled that the rights described by that amendment can't be limited by a state law."}, {"video_title": "Selective incorporation   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this became a little bit clearer once the 14th Amendment came along. And just to remind ourselves, here's section one of the 14th Amendment, and we really wanna zero in on the Due Process Clause, which says, \"'Nor shall any state deprive any person \"'of life, liberty, or property \"'without due process of law.'\" Now, some have argued for total incorporation that says, hey, look, the 14th Amendment's making it clear that the state cannot infringe on these rights. But what has happened, especially in the United States Supreme Court, is that on various decisions, maybe this was something involving the Fifth Amendment, they've ruled that the rights described by that amendment can't be limited by a state law. So they would have selectively incorporated the Fifth Amendment from the Bill of Rights, and a decision on what the state can and cannot do, and their justification there is the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. And to make that a little bit more tangible, we can look at some relatively recent cases. In 2008, you have the case District of Columbia versus Heller."}, {"video_title": "Selective incorporation   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what has happened, especially in the United States Supreme Court, is that on various decisions, maybe this was something involving the Fifth Amendment, they've ruled that the rights described by that amendment can't be limited by a state law. So they would have selectively incorporated the Fifth Amendment from the Bill of Rights, and a decision on what the state can and cannot do, and their justification there is the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. And to make that a little bit more tangible, we can look at some relatively recent cases. In 2008, you have the case District of Columbia versus Heller. And this is a really interesting case around the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., had a law that banned handguns. And so one of the residents challenges that handgun ban, and it goes all the way to the United States Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "Selective incorporation   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In 2008, you have the case District of Columbia versus Heller. And this is a really interesting case around the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., had a law that banned handguns. And so one of the residents challenges that handgun ban, and it goes all the way to the United States Supreme Court. And in the decision on District of Columbia versus Heller, the United States Supreme Court says that the District of Columbia cannot pass a law that violates Heller's Second Amendment rights because of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. But that still left a little bit of an opening. You fast forward, and in 2010, you have another similar case go to the Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "Selective incorporation   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so one of the residents challenges that handgun ban, and it goes all the way to the United States Supreme Court. And in the decision on District of Columbia versus Heller, the United States Supreme Court says that the District of Columbia cannot pass a law that violates Heller's Second Amendment rights because of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. But that still left a little bit of an opening. You fast forward, and in 2010, you have another similar case go to the Supreme Court. This is McDonald versus Chicago. Chicago had a similar handgun ban, and McDonald was a resident of Chicago. And the government in Chicago argued that, okay, you know what, the District of Columbia versus Heller does not apply to us because that was a federal district, and it would not apply to something that is part of a state."}, {"video_title": "Selective incorporation   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You fast forward, and in 2010, you have another similar case go to the Supreme Court. This is McDonald versus Chicago. Chicago had a similar handgun ban, and McDonald was a resident of Chicago. And the government in Chicago argued that, okay, you know what, the District of Columbia versus Heller does not apply to us because that was a federal district, and it would not apply to something that is part of a state. Well, the Supreme Court disagreed with Chicago and took the side of McDonald. They selectively incorporated, using the 14th Amendment as their justification, they said, look, the state cannot deprive any person of their liberties. And so they selectively incorporated the Second Amendment into that decision, and it made it very clear that a state cannot pass a law that infringes on people's Second Amendment rights."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what was the Gilded Age and why did it happen? The Gilded Age is this fascinating period from about 1870 to 1900. You can change the dates a little bit, but that's so we're talking post-civil war. America becomes an industrial powerhouse. The cities rise. So at 1850, fewer people live in the cities than in the rural part of the country. By 1900 more people live in the cities."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "America becomes an industrial powerhouse. The cities rise. So at 1850, fewer people live in the cities than in the rural part of the country. By 1900 more people live in the cities. And basically you have the birth of the railroads. The railroads get connected in 1869, going all the way, Continental Railroad going all the way across the country. You have the rise of oil and John Rockefeller."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "By 1900 more people live in the cities. And basically you have the birth of the railroads. The railroads get connected in 1869, going all the way, Continental Railroad going all the way across the country. You have the rise of oil and John Rockefeller. And basically this period, think of Rockefeller and Vanderbilt and Carnegie and JP Morgan as powerful the way we think of presidents. Presidents during this period kind of were on the descent, but the magnets of industry, railroad, oil, steel, those were all banking. Those were the superheroes in America and they led to this amazing growth in industrialization, but then also huge disparities."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have the rise of oil and John Rockefeller. And basically this period, think of Rockefeller and Vanderbilt and Carnegie and JP Morgan as powerful the way we think of presidents. Presidents during this period kind of were on the descent, but the magnets of industry, railroad, oil, steel, those were all banking. Those were the superheroes in America and they led to this amazing growth in industrialization, but then also huge disparities. No labor laws that we would be familiar with today. So you had this industrialization with people working in the industries who had no protections, child labor, working 22 hours a day, horrible health conditions. So this gurgling, booming America, but where there's great disparities between who's doing well and and who's not."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Those were the superheroes in America and they led to this amazing growth in industrialization, but then also huge disparities. No labor laws that we would be familiar with today. So you had this industrialization with people working in the industries who had no protections, child labor, working 22 hours a day, horrible health conditions. So this gurgling, booming America, but where there's great disparities between who's doing well and and who's not. And it was called gilded because those who were doing well were living very well. Right, gilded as in a gilded frame, covered with gold. This came from a novel by Mark Twain."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this gurgling, booming America, but where there's great disparities between who's doing well and and who's not. And it was called gilded because those who were doing well were living very well. Right, gilded as in a gilded frame, covered with gold. This came from a novel by Mark Twain. And that's right. It takes on the cast of this extraordinary wealth. Rockefeller was the first billionaire in America."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This came from a novel by Mark Twain. And that's right. It takes on the cast of this extraordinary wealth. Rockefeller was the first billionaire in America. Vanderbilt built the biggest house, still the biggest house in America during this period. So the wealth was, people would make eight to ten dollars in a week. Some of these tycoons were making eight to ten dollars in a minute."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Rockefeller was the first billionaire in America. Vanderbilt built the biggest house, still the biggest house in America during this period. So the wealth was, people would make eight to ten dollars in a week. Some of these tycoons were making eight to ten dollars in a minute. And so that kind of vast wealth, because you could only make so much wealth before, this is just mountains of wealth and then also again this great disparity. And it seems like it came from really technology. Technology allowed all of this productivity, the railroads, steel, etc, etc."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Some of these tycoons were making eight to ten dollars in a minute. And so that kind of vast wealth, because you could only make so much wealth before, this is just mountains of wealth and then also again this great disparity. And it seems like it came from really technology. Technology allowed all of this productivity, the railroads, steel, etc, etc. And then of course finance was able to get in there and help move capital more efficiently. What parallels do you see with our current age where technology seems to be doing something similar, where we have all of these new industries and new wealth, but some fear that it might be causing some inequality? You have, yes, you have a couple of things."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Technology allowed all of this productivity, the railroads, steel, etc, etc. And then of course finance was able to get in there and help move capital more efficiently. What parallels do you see with our current age where technology seems to be doing something similar, where we have all of these new industries and new wealth, but some fear that it might be causing some inequality? You have, yes, you have a couple of things. You have innovation in these various different industries, both innovation in the creation of things, but then also innovations in the structures of business, buying up small businesses, creating big conglomerates, then using that leverage and power to then crowd out competitors for sure, but then also to raise prices because you're the only game in town. And you also have business practices that are not the sort of the laissez-faire economic belief set essentially that in the economy it was like in in the American system, which was let it operate. Don't get in the way, don't mess with it, because when it operates it runs the most efficiently for America."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have, yes, you have a couple of things. You have innovation in these various different industries, both innovation in the creation of things, but then also innovations in the structures of business, buying up small businesses, creating big conglomerates, then using that leverage and power to then crowd out competitors for sure, but then also to raise prices because you're the only game in town. And you also have business practices that are not the sort of the laissez-faire economic belief set essentially that in the economy it was like in in the American system, which was let it operate. Don't get in the way, don't mess with it, because when it operates it runs the most efficiently for America. In the end markets can be messy, but they're gonna have the best outcome. That's right. Is what is the argument behind laissez-faire."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Don't get in the way, don't mess with it, because when it operates it runs the most efficiently for America. In the end markets can be messy, but they're gonna have the best outcome. That's right. Is what is the argument behind laissez-faire. That's exactly right. And it got this wonderful assist from Charles Darwin who said we can explain the growth of, or we can explain the species and we can explain our natural world with this theory about the competition among the species and and this term survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Is what is the argument behind laissez-faire. That's exactly right. And it got this wonderful assist from Charles Darwin who said we can explain the growth of, or we can explain the species and we can explain our natural world with this theory about the competition among the species and and this term survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism. So survival of the fittest, which some and I certainly thought might have come from Darwin, didn't. It came from Herbert Spencer who basically had an economic theory of survival of the fittest and it went this way. Some people have more talent than others and when they exercise their talent they do very well and that's the best thing for society."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Social Darwinism. So survival of the fittest, which some and I certainly thought might have come from Darwin, didn't. It came from Herbert Spencer who basically had an economic theory of survival of the fittest and it went this way. Some people have more talent than others and when they exercise their talent they do very well and that's the best thing for society. It believed that society was ever increasing. It didn't mean that every single person was increasing, but that if you followed survival of the fittest and the best people did the best, then ultimately society would always be on an evolutionary plane of moving upward. And so that was the theory behind get out of the way of these big companies and these big tycoons and they will do the best for America."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Some people have more talent than others and when they exercise their talent they do very well and that's the best thing for society. It believed that society was ever increasing. It didn't mean that every single person was increasing, but that if you followed survival of the fittest and the best people did the best, then ultimately society would always be on an evolutionary plane of moving upward. And so that was the theory behind get out of the way of these big companies and these big tycoons and they will do the best for America. And so the reason that was important was A, it kept government out of the way. B, it kept religious, it created a religion that, it was a secular religion, of course, but it created a theory that said wow that looks like what you're doing is totally self-interested, but there's this theory behind it and everybody will improve. So, okay, go ahead."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so that was the theory behind get out of the way of these big companies and these big tycoons and they will do the best for America. And so the reason that was important was A, it kept government out of the way. B, it kept religious, it created a religion that, it was a secular religion, of course, but it created a theory that said wow that looks like what you're doing is totally self-interested, but there's this theory behind it and everybody will improve. So, okay, go ahead. Yeah, that was the beginning of Gordon Gekko's famous greed is good. Right, right. Yeah."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So, okay, go ahead. Yeah, that was the beginning of Gordon Gekko's famous greed is good. Right, right. Yeah. Yeah, greed is good. So the comparison to our current moment is you have huge disparity and and technologies that are, to use a cliche of the day, disruptive, that are completely changing the way everybody does business, changing the the, when we think about the way in which Americans behave, that rapid sense of change, it's changing culture rapidly and it's making big winners and losers and those big disparities exist as well. How did the Gilded Age play out?"}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah. Yeah, greed is good. So the comparison to our current moment is you have huge disparity and and technologies that are, to use a cliche of the day, disruptive, that are completely changing the way everybody does business, changing the the, when we think about the way in which Americans behave, that rapid sense of change, it's changing culture rapidly and it's making big winners and losers and those big disparities exist as well. How did the Gilded Age play out? Were some of these forces moderated eventually, maybe around 1900? And do you think similar things might happen for us? There were two big moderations in the, in response to the Gilded Age."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How did the Gilded Age play out? Were some of these forces moderated eventually, maybe around 1900? And do you think similar things might happen for us? There were two big moderations in the, in response to the Gilded Age. You had government came back, came awake again, and you had and then you also had labor movements that came into into formation, basically to slow down the the growth and the rapacious demands of the Gilded Age. Politics during the Gilded Age kind of went, became an offshoot of the titans of industry. If you look at the presidency between 1876 and 1892, there's, they're all one-term presidents and none of them get more than 50 percent of the vote."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There were two big moderations in the, in response to the Gilded Age. You had government came back, came awake again, and you had and then you also had labor movements that came into into formation, basically to slow down the the growth and the rapacious demands of the Gilded Age. Politics during the Gilded Age kind of went, became an offshoot of the titans of industry. If you look at the presidency between 1876 and 1892, there's, they're all one-term presidents and none of them get more than 50 percent of the vote. And basically what the president spent their time doing is using the spoil system, which is essentially putting people in jobs, to pay off the local bosses who helped them get elected. So getting elected was, became a job of staying elected and that meant doling out patronage, basically giving people jobs who were your friends so that they would go and vote for you because these elections are all very close. And that's not getting a lot of work done for the people."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you look at the presidency between 1876 and 1892, there's, they're all one-term presidents and none of them get more than 50 percent of the vote. And basically what the president spent their time doing is using the spoil system, which is essentially putting people in jobs, to pay off the local bosses who helped them get elected. So getting elected was, became a job of staying elected and that meant doling out patronage, basically giving people jobs who were your friends so that they would go and vote for you because these elections are all very close. And that's not getting a lot of work done for the people. Some of them, Rutherford B. Hayes tried these little efforts at civil service reform, which was essentially meant putting people in jobs who could monitor the factories, make sure that people weren't getting abused or that health wasn't declining or that anything that a government might do that we think of today, but his political patrons didn't want that. So that was all very hard to do. What happened on the workers end is they realized and the most famous moment was in 1911, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, where a number of women working in a garment factory are, there's a fire and the bosses lock the doors and I think 40 some odd women die, most of the women, and it highlighted the labor issues."}, {"video_title": "What was the Gilded Age   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's not getting a lot of work done for the people. Some of them, Rutherford B. Hayes tried these little efforts at civil service reform, which was essentially meant putting people in jobs who could monitor the factories, make sure that people weren't getting abused or that health wasn't declining or that anything that a government might do that we think of today, but his political patrons didn't want that. So that was all very hard to do. What happened on the workers end is they realized and the most famous moment was in 1911, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, where a number of women working in a garment factory are, there's a fire and the bosses lock the doors and I think 40 some odd women die, most of the women, and it highlighted the labor issues. But labor unions start to organize and there are huge clashes and strikes and consumer boycotts and those start to put some pressure on business to change their practices, at least in terms of worker hours and the kinds of things that we now would certainly take for granted. Wow, fascinating. It's an incredible period."}, {"video_title": "Senate confirmation as a check on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it's not just that the president can decide who gets to be a justice. They have to be confirmed by the Senate. And what you see over here, what I'm about to play, are the confirmation hearings from Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2009. And what I hope you get from it is it's not an easy process. This is going to be a question from Senator Chuck Grassley, who's a Republican from Iowa, and he's going to be asking about whether marriage is a state or a federal question. So do you agree that marriage is a question reserved for the states to decide based on Baker versus Nelson? That also."}, {"video_title": "Senate confirmation as a check on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what I hope you get from it is it's not an easy process. This is going to be a question from Senator Chuck Grassley, who's a Republican from Iowa, and he's going to be asking about whether marriage is a state or a federal question. So do you agree that marriage is a question reserved for the states to decide based on Baker versus Nelson? That also. It's a question that's pending and impending in many courts. As you know, the issue of marriage and what constitutes it is a subject of much public discussion. And there's a number of cases in state courts addressing the issue of who regulates it under what terms."}, {"video_title": "Senate confirmation as a check on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That also. It's a question that's pending and impending in many courts. As you know, the issue of marriage and what constitutes it is a subject of much public discussion. And there's a number of cases in state courts addressing the issue of who regulates it under what terms. Can I please interrupt you? I thought I was asking a very simple question based upon a precedent that Baker versus Nelson is based on the proposition that yesterday, in so many cases, whether it was Griswold, whether it was Roe v. Wade, whether it was Chevron, whether it's a whole bunch of other cases that you made reference to, the Casey case, the Gonzalez case, the Ligon Creative Leather Products case, the Keillow case, you made that case to me. You said these are precedents."}, {"video_title": "Senate confirmation as a check on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there's a number of cases in state courts addressing the issue of who regulates it under what terms. Can I please interrupt you? I thought I was asking a very simple question based upon a precedent that Baker versus Nelson is based on the proposition that yesterday, in so many cases, whether it was Griswold, whether it was Roe v. Wade, whether it was Chevron, whether it's a whole bunch of other cases that you made reference to, the Casey case, the Gonzalez case, the Ligon Creative Leather Products case, the Keillow case, you made that case to me. You said these are precedents. Now are you saying to me that Baker versus Nelson is not a precedent? No, sir. I just haven't reviewed Baker in a while."}, {"video_title": "Senate confirmation as a check on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You said these are precedents. Now are you saying to me that Baker versus Nelson is not a precedent? No, sir. I just haven't reviewed Baker in a while. And so I actually don't know what the status is. If it is the court's precedent, as I've indicated in all of my answers, I will apply that precedent to the facts of any new situation that implicates it. Always the first question."}, {"video_title": "Senate confirmation as a check on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I just haven't reviewed Baker in a while. And so I actually don't know what the status is. If it is the court's precedent, as I've indicated in all of my answers, I will apply that precedent to the facts of any new situation that implicates it. Always the first question. Well then tell me what sort of a process you might go through. So anyway, you can see that this is not an easy process. And in this situation, you have an appointment by a Democratic president, and you have questions from a Republican senator, and this is fairly typical."}, {"video_title": "Senate confirmation as a check on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Always the first question. Well then tell me what sort of a process you might go through. So anyway, you can see that this is not an easy process. And in this situation, you have an appointment by a Democratic president, and you have questions from a Republican senator, and this is fairly typical. They're likely to ask more pointed questions and try to get the appointee to trip up. And if you were to see questions from a Democratic senator, they'd be more likely to ask questions that would make the nominee look a little bit better. And that tends to always be the case."}, {"video_title": "Senate confirmation as a check on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And in this situation, you have an appointment by a Democratic president, and you have questions from a Republican senator, and this is fairly typical. They're likely to ask more pointed questions and try to get the appointee to trip up. And if you were to see questions from a Democratic senator, they'd be more likely to ask questions that would make the nominee look a little bit better. And that tends to always be the case. If it's from the same party, they tend to try to smooth the process while the opposition party tries to make it a little bit more difficult. And an interesting thing to think about is Justice Sotomayor eventually does get appointed to the Supreme Court. But what was the goal of Senator Grassley here in asking these questions, even if he knew that she was eventually going to be appointed?"}, {"video_title": "Senate confirmation as a check on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that tends to always be the case. If it's from the same party, they tend to try to smooth the process while the opposition party tries to make it a little bit more difficult. And an interesting thing to think about is Justice Sotomayor eventually does get appointed to the Supreme Court. But what was the goal of Senator Grassley here in asking these questions, even if he knew that she was eventually going to be appointed? There's other themes that we've talked about in government that he might be playing to. He might be asking these questions more for his constituents or there might be an element of, even if a Supreme Court justice is going to be appointed, at the end of the day, there's also the court of public opinion, so to speak. And these might be opportunities to sow some seeds of doubt or to make it a little bit more difficult for a Supreme Court justice to, in the future, vote one way or another based on what they say during these hearings."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the Supreme Court is important for the original founders' reasons. It was like all American institutions. There were ideas the founders had, and then John Marshall, an important justice, created the office by the practice of the office. And it is important because the court is where America's thorniest questions go to be resolved. They haven't been resolved in the executive branch and the legislative branch, and so the court has to take them up. And that is where the court goes back to those first principles. Again, why we study American history."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And it is important because the court is where America's thorniest questions go to be resolved. They haven't been resolved in the executive branch and the legislative branch, and so the court has to take them up. And that is where the court goes back to those first principles. Again, why we study American history. What exactly was the outline for how the country is supposed to behave, and are we staying within that outline and those series of ideals? It goes back to the very beginning ingredients of America. So the court is a test always of whether what we're doing now is in keeping with what we were supposed to do at the founding of the country."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Again, why we study American history. What exactly was the outline for how the country is supposed to behave, and are we staying within that outline and those series of ideals? It goes back to the very beginning ingredients of America. So the court is a test always of whether what we're doing now is in keeping with what we were supposed to do at the founding of the country. The reason it has become so important recently is that the court ends up doing a lot more than it was ever supposed to do because of weakness in the executive branch and the legislative branch. And so a lot of people are now looking to the court to solve problems that should actually be handled by the people's representatives. The judges are not elected."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So the court is a test always of whether what we're doing now is in keeping with what we were supposed to do at the founding of the country. The reason it has become so important recently is that the court ends up doing a lot more than it was ever supposed to do because of weakness in the executive branch and the legislative branch. And so a lot of people are now looking to the court to solve problems that should actually be handled by the people's representatives. The judges are not elected. They are in there for life at the Supreme Court through the process of the president with advice and consent by the Senate, but they are not elected. And this was supposed to be a republic in which the elected representatives were the ones making the laws. But that's, we've shifted away from that."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "The judges are not elected. They are in there for life at the Supreme Court through the process of the president with advice and consent by the Senate, but they are not elected. And this was supposed to be a republic in which the elected representatives were the ones making the laws. But that's, we've shifted away from that. And so the court is now making decisions that can affect people's lives for a generation and not be changed as easily as say a piece of legislation, which can be vetoed, amended, superseded by another piece of legislation. It's really permanent changes in the American life. So my understanding is that the Supreme Court should be above politics."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "But that's, we've shifted away from that. And so the court is now making decisions that can affect people's lives for a generation and not be changed as easily as say a piece of legislation, which can be vetoed, amended, superseded by another piece of legislation. It's really permanent changes in the American life. So my understanding is that the Supreme Court should be above politics. To what degree is that actually the case? Well the Supreme Court has had lots of interest. There have been times where the Supreme Court, when Andrew Jackson was president, he tried to use the Supreme Court to do what he wanted it to do."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So my understanding is that the Supreme Court should be above politics. To what degree is that actually the case? Well the Supreme Court has had lots of interest. There have been times where the Supreme Court, when Andrew Jackson was president, he tried to use the Supreme Court to do what he wanted it to do. And Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to change the functioning of the court because it kept knocking down all of his, all the things he wanted to do. We've had moments where there have been these spasms where presidents have tried to get the court to do what they wanted. But in general, it was the American tradition that the justices were supposed to be picked if they were of good character and if they were of sound legal mind."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "There have been times where the Supreme Court, when Andrew Jackson was president, he tried to use the Supreme Court to do what he wanted it to do. And Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to change the functioning of the court because it kept knocking down all of his, all the things he wanted to do. We've had moments where there have been these spasms where presidents have tried to get the court to do what they wanted. But in general, it was the American tradition that the justices were supposed to be picked if they were of good character and if they were of sound legal mind. If they had views on the matters related to the Constitution that were sort of sound legally. But their politics weren't supposed to be so important. What has happened is, like so much in modern American life, is there has been an intertwining of politics and the legal profession so that now when presidents run for office, they say, elect me so that I can put in our kinds of judges."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "But in general, it was the American tradition that the justices were supposed to be picked if they were of good character and if they were of sound legal mind. If they had views on the matters related to the Constitution that were sort of sound legally. But their politics weren't supposed to be so important. What has happened is, like so much in modern American life, is there has been an intertwining of politics and the legal profession so that now when presidents run for office, they say, elect me so that I can put in our kinds of judges. Which means that the kind of judge you pick helps you with your voters. And if your voters want a very specific kind of ideological judge, then the more ideological of the judge that you pick, the greater your voters will be happy about you and that'll keep you in office. And that is true of the senators advising and consenting on these decisions and true of the presidents who pick them."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "What has happened is, like so much in modern American life, is there has been an intertwining of politics and the legal profession so that now when presidents run for office, they say, elect me so that I can put in our kinds of judges. Which means that the kind of judge you pick helps you with your voters. And if your voters want a very specific kind of ideological judge, then the more ideological of the judge that you pick, the greater your voters will be happy about you and that'll keep you in office. And that is true of the senators advising and consenting on these decisions and true of the presidents who pick them. Well, that means that the people who go into the office, into the Supreme Court, I should say, end up being more political than in the past. There was a period where when an American president would pick a justice, that justice very often would rule in a way that was totally the opposite of what the members of that president's party wanted. It happened repeatedly in American life."}, {"video_title": "Why was Reagan's presidency so significant   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why was Ronald Reagan's presidency so significant? Ronald Reagan plays an important role in the modern presidency for two big things that he did. One on the domestic front, he broke considerably with the kind of way of doing things in Washington. He basically in response to the New Deal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Great Society from Lyndon Johnson, President Reagan came in and said, no longer is government your friend in American life. The government is actually the problem. This was the message of his inaugural address. And he broke with the idea that the federal government through the application of its resources could help American life, which was a very stark ideological break with the way the American government had been going since the mid 40s."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Today we're learning more about the landmark Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford. Decided in 1857, the ruling in the Dred Scott case inflamed sectional tensions over slavery, which had been growing ever more heated over the course of the 1850s. Originally a case about whether one man ought to be free, Dred Scott v. Sanford transformed into a case about African American citizenship and the future of the institution of slavery itself. To learn more, I sought out the help of two experts. Christopher Bracey is a professor of law at the George Washington University School of Law. He's an expert in US race relations, individual rights, and criminal procedure. Timothy Huebner is the Irma O. Sternberg Professor of History at Rhodes College and the author of Liberty and Union, The Civil War Era and American Constitutionalism."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more, I sought out the help of two experts. Christopher Bracey is a professor of law at the George Washington University School of Law. He's an expert in US race relations, individual rights, and criminal procedure. Timothy Huebner is the Irma O. Sternberg Professor of History at Rhodes College and the author of Liberty and Union, The Civil War Era and American Constitutionalism. So Professor Bracey, can you take us through a little bit just who was Dred Scott and why did he bring this case? So Dred Scott was born around 1800 and was the slave of Peter and Elizabeth Taylor Blow. In 1818, Peter Blow decides to move his family and Dred Scott to Alabama where he had bought a cotton plantation."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Timothy Huebner is the Irma O. Sternberg Professor of History at Rhodes College and the author of Liberty and Union, The Civil War Era and American Constitutionalism. So Professor Bracey, can you take us through a little bit just who was Dred Scott and why did he bring this case? So Dred Scott was born around 1800 and was the slave of Peter and Elizabeth Taylor Blow. In 1818, Peter Blow decides to move his family and Dred Scott to Alabama where he had bought a cotton plantation. That didn't go so well. So he sells the plantation and moves the family and Dred to St. Louis, Missouri, where he had purchased a boarding house called the Jefferson Hotel. And that period really was a period during which the nation was arguing over the status of slaves and the rights of slaveholders and the future of slavery in new Western territories."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In 1818, Peter Blow decides to move his family and Dred Scott to Alabama where he had bought a cotton plantation. That didn't go so well. So he sells the plantation and moves the family and Dred to St. Louis, Missouri, where he had purchased a boarding house called the Jefferson Hotel. And that period really was a period during which the nation was arguing over the status of slaves and the rights of slaveholders and the future of slavery in new Western territories. And this issue came up in a very significant way, in a very controversial way, in the question of the future of slavery in the territory and ultimately the state of Missouri. After two years of arguing over this, finally in 1820 and 1821, a sort of compromise was set out by members of Congress. North of the southern border of Missouri, with the exception of the state of Missouri, slavery would be banned."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that period really was a period during which the nation was arguing over the status of slaves and the rights of slaveholders and the future of slavery in new Western territories. And this issue came up in a very significant way, in a very controversial way, in the question of the future of slavery in the territory and ultimately the state of Missouri. After two years of arguing over this, finally in 1820 and 1821, a sort of compromise was set out by members of Congress. North of the southern border of Missouri, with the exception of the state of Missouri, slavery would be banned. In 1830, Elizabeth Taylor Blow dies and Peter himself dies two years later. But before he does, he makes an arrangement to sell Dred to an army physician by the name of Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson is an army physician, so he's gonna be stationed in a lot of different places, not just in the slave state of Missouri."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "North of the southern border of Missouri, with the exception of the state of Missouri, slavery would be banned. In 1830, Elizabeth Taylor Blow dies and Peter himself dies two years later. But before he does, he makes an arrangement to sell Dred to an army physician by the name of Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson is an army physician, so he's gonna be stationed in a lot of different places, not just in the slave state of Missouri. In fact, it turns out that Dr. Emerson's first posting with Dred takes him to Fort Armstrong, which is located in Rock Island, Illinois, and Illinois, of course, is a free state. Under both federal law and Missouri law, as understood at the time, Dred would have lost his slave status and become a free man as soon as he stepped foot onto free territory. This was known as the extraterritorial emancipation doctrine."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Dr. Emerson is an army physician, so he's gonna be stationed in a lot of different places, not just in the slave state of Missouri. In fact, it turns out that Dr. Emerson's first posting with Dred takes him to Fort Armstrong, which is located in Rock Island, Illinois, and Illinois, of course, is a free state. Under both federal law and Missouri law, as understood at the time, Dred would have lost his slave status and become a free man as soon as he stepped foot onto free territory. This was known as the extraterritorial emancipation doctrine. It was perfectly legal and perfectly possible for a slave sojourner, a slave who had been taken into a free state or free territory, to file suit for his freedom. Dr. Emerson marries Eliza Irene Sanford of St. Louis. Dr. Emerson eventually dies in 1843 and he leaves the entire estate, including the Scots, to Mrs. Emerson."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This was known as the extraterritorial emancipation doctrine. It was perfectly legal and perfectly possible for a slave sojourner, a slave who had been taken into a free state or free territory, to file suit for his freedom. Dr. Emerson marries Eliza Irene Sanford of St. Louis. Dr. Emerson eventually dies in 1843 and he leaves the entire estate, including the Scots, to Mrs. Emerson. Mrs. Emerson decides she would like to hire Dred out to make some money for herself. Rather than be hired out, Dred offers to purchase his own freedom and the freedom of his entire family. But Mrs. Emerson refuses to allow Dred to buy out the freedom of his family."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Dr. Emerson eventually dies in 1843 and he leaves the entire estate, including the Scots, to Mrs. Emerson. Mrs. Emerson decides she would like to hire Dred out to make some money for herself. Rather than be hired out, Dred offers to purchase his own freedom and the freedom of his entire family. But Mrs. Emerson refuses to allow Dred to buy out the freedom of his family. So Dred Scott files a civil lawsuit, what was called a freedom suit back then, in the Missouri State Court. And his claim was that Mrs. Emerson was falsely imprisoning him and his family. And he was able to do this with the help of the sons of his former owners."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But Mrs. Emerson refuses to allow Dred to buy out the freedom of his family. So Dred Scott files a civil lawsuit, what was called a freedom suit back then, in the Missouri State Court. And his claim was that Mrs. Emerson was falsely imprisoning him and his family. And he was able to do this with the help of the sons of his former owners. The lawyer is being paid by the children of Peter and Elizabeth Taylor Blow, Dred Scott's first master. In the meantime, you have a new development. Mrs. Emerson has remarried to Republican Congressman Calvin Chafee from Massachusetts."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he was able to do this with the help of the sons of his former owners. The lawyer is being paid by the children of Peter and Elizabeth Taylor Blow, Dred Scott's first master. In the meantime, you have a new development. Mrs. Emerson has remarried to Republican Congressman Calvin Chafee from Massachusetts. And he can't be a slave owner and still be a Republican Congressman from Massachusetts. So Mrs. Emerson transfers title of the Scots to her brother, John Sanford, who is a resident of New York with business ties in St. Louis. Now it was eligible for the case to go into federal court in that it involved people who lived in two different states."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Mrs. Emerson has remarried to Republican Congressman Calvin Chafee from Massachusetts. And he can't be a slave owner and still be a Republican Congressman from Massachusetts. So Mrs. Emerson transfers title of the Scots to her brother, John Sanford, who is a resident of New York with business ties in St. Louis. Now it was eligible for the case to go into federal court in that it involved people who lived in two different states. So now you might be thinking, well, filing a lawsuit against your purported master, that's pretty brave stuff. But as it turns out, freedom suits of this nature were not that uncommon, particularly in border states where the slavery question was hotly disputed. Indeed, there were some 300 or so of these freedom suits that were filed in Missouri during the period in which Dred Scott filed his case."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now it was eligible for the case to go into federal court in that it involved people who lived in two different states. So now you might be thinking, well, filing a lawsuit against your purported master, that's pretty brave stuff. But as it turns out, freedom suits of this nature were not that uncommon, particularly in border states where the slavery question was hotly disputed. Indeed, there were some 300 or so of these freedom suits that were filed in Missouri during the period in which Dred Scott filed his case. Many people viewed the Missouri Compromise as not so much of a compromise, but as something that was forced upon the slave states. And then you've got the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which gave similar autonomy to those areas to decide the slavery question and whether or not it would be introduced into those territories. Interesting, so people in the North who opposed slavery or at the very least didn't want slavery to expand would have been looking in the 1850s and saying, hey, I thought we already decided this, there wouldn't be slavery North of this line."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Indeed, there were some 300 or so of these freedom suits that were filed in Missouri during the period in which Dred Scott filed his case. Many people viewed the Missouri Compromise as not so much of a compromise, but as something that was forced upon the slave states. And then you've got the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which gave similar autonomy to those areas to decide the slavery question and whether or not it would be introduced into those territories. Interesting, so people in the North who opposed slavery or at the very least didn't want slavery to expand would have been looking in the 1850s and saying, hey, I thought we already decided this, there wouldn't be slavery North of this line. And now you're saying maybe Kansas and Nebraska could be slave states. Right, and that was a huge issue in national politics because Northerners are starting to grow very suspicious of Southerners on the slavery issue. They're starting to speak of what they called the slave power, that Southern slaveholders sort of held all of this power in Washington and that they were sort of running the show and that this 1854 Act had made it possible for slavery to potentially expand into an area where previously it had been banned."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Interesting, so people in the North who opposed slavery or at the very least didn't want slavery to expand would have been looking in the 1850s and saying, hey, I thought we already decided this, there wouldn't be slavery North of this line. And now you're saying maybe Kansas and Nebraska could be slave states. Right, and that was a huge issue in national politics because Northerners are starting to grow very suspicious of Southerners on the slavery issue. They're starting to speak of what they called the slave power, that Southern slaveholders sort of held all of this power in Washington and that they were sort of running the show and that this 1854 Act had made it possible for slavery to potentially expand into an area where previously it had been banned. And you really do get this escalation of tension and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which basically forced requirements upon free states to ensure the longevity of the slave states by requiring them to undertake certain behaviors in the return of fugitive slaves only escalated the tension and concern about the status of slavery in American life. All right, so we're in this incredibly tense time of the 1850s with the slavery question yet unanswered and Dred Scott and his case get to the Supreme Court. So how does the Supreme Court rule on this?"}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They're starting to speak of what they called the slave power, that Southern slaveholders sort of held all of this power in Washington and that they were sort of running the show and that this 1854 Act had made it possible for slavery to potentially expand into an area where previously it had been banned. And you really do get this escalation of tension and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which basically forced requirements upon free states to ensure the longevity of the slave states by requiring them to undertake certain behaviors in the return of fugitive slaves only escalated the tension and concern about the status of slavery in American life. All right, so we're in this incredibly tense time of the 1850s with the slavery question yet unanswered and Dred Scott and his case get to the Supreme Court. So how does the Supreme Court rule on this? In a seven to two ruling, the Supreme Court held that Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States. And so therefore he could not bring his freedom suit before federal court, which is really a jurisdictional question. But then the court also goes on to invalidate the Missouri Compromise, despite finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So how does the Supreme Court rule on this? In a seven to two ruling, the Supreme Court held that Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States. And so therefore he could not bring his freedom suit before federal court, which is really a jurisdictional question. But then the court also goes on to invalidate the Missouri Compromise, despite finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. What happens when the case is being argued is that one of the arguments that's introduced is this idea that when Scott had been taken into free territory, he wasn't necessarily free because the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. And so what the court ends up doing is not only ruling on the status of Scott, but also on the status of slavery in these federal territories in the West and the extent of the powers of Congress over slavery in the West. Interesting."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But then the court also goes on to invalidate the Missouri Compromise, despite finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. What happens when the case is being argued is that one of the arguments that's introduced is this idea that when Scott had been taken into free territory, he wasn't necessarily free because the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. And so what the court ends up doing is not only ruling on the status of Scott, but also on the status of slavery in these federal territories in the West and the extent of the powers of Congress over slavery in the West. Interesting. So Chief Justice Roger Taney is then leading the Supreme Court and he, I guess, leads the reasoning about this case. So what were some of the arguments that he eventually accepted and made in his decision? So Chief Justice Taney is a very interesting figure."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Interesting. So Chief Justice Roger Taney is then leading the Supreme Court and he, I guess, leads the reasoning about this case. So what were some of the arguments that he eventually accepted and made in his decision? So Chief Justice Taney is a very interesting figure. He had been on the court for many years. He, in his early years, had been moderately antislavery, had freed most of his own slaves and had made antislavery statements. But by 1857, Taney reflected the larger change that had taken place within his political party."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So Chief Justice Taney is a very interesting figure. He had been on the court for many years. He, in his early years, had been moderately antislavery, had freed most of his own slaves and had made antislavery statements. But by 1857, Taney reflected the larger change that had taken place within his political party. Taney was a Democrat and the Democratic Party had become more Southern dominated and more pro-slavery. And Taney then, by 1857, really is a symbol of pro-slavery Southern thought. Justice Taney's opinion is somewhat notorious."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But by 1857, Taney reflected the larger change that had taken place within his political party. Taney was a Democrat and the Democratic Party had become more Southern dominated and more pro-slavery. And Taney then, by 1857, really is a symbol of pro-slavery Southern thought. Justice Taney's opinion is somewhat notorious. He makes a series of arguments and one is legal, the others are really not legal arguments, as I'll explain. So what he starts out by saying is that just because you're a citizen of a state, that that does not make you a citizen of the United States. He says, basically, the federal government has exclusive authority to decide who is a citizen of the United States."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Justice Taney's opinion is somewhat notorious. He makes a series of arguments and one is legal, the others are really not legal arguments, as I'll explain. So what he starts out by saying is that just because you're a citizen of a state, that that does not make you a citizen of the United States. He says, basically, the federal government has exclusive authority to decide who is a citizen of the United States. Then he makes a second argument and he says, even if Dred Scott were a citizen of the state of Missouri, he would not be a citizen of the United States because he's Black. And what he meant by that is that the word citizen, as used in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, categorically excluded members of the Negro race. This is fascinating because it seems to me like Justice Taney may have been kind of ignoring a long history of free people of color in the United States who had voting rights, who had property rights."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He says, basically, the federal government has exclusive authority to decide who is a citizen of the United States. Then he makes a second argument and he says, even if Dred Scott were a citizen of the state of Missouri, he would not be a citizen of the United States because he's Black. And what he meant by that is that the word citizen, as used in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, categorically excluded members of the Negro race. This is fascinating because it seems to me like Justice Taney may have been kind of ignoring a long history of free people of color in the United States who had voting rights, who had property rights. He was, and that was part of the criticism of the majority opinion that comes in, especially the dissent written by Justice Benjamin Curtis. Curtis had the lengthier of the two dissents and the more thorough legal argument because as you point out, that in five states at the time of the founding, that African-Americans did exercise the right to vote. That was a sign or some sort of an indication of their status as citizens."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is fascinating because it seems to me like Justice Taney may have been kind of ignoring a long history of free people of color in the United States who had voting rights, who had property rights. He was, and that was part of the criticism of the majority opinion that comes in, especially the dissent written by Justice Benjamin Curtis. Curtis had the lengthier of the two dissents and the more thorough legal argument because as you point out, that in five states at the time of the founding, that African-Americans did exercise the right to vote. That was a sign or some sort of an indication of their status as citizens. And so the argument made by Justice Curtis then is that Taney's reading of history was that the founders had not intended for African-Americans to be part of the people or the citizens that were referred to in the text of the US Constitution. What Justice Taney has done here has basically created a blind spot for himself. And he goes on to point out that this is not his belief, this belief in Negro inferiority, but he said that it was a fixed and universal belief within the civilized portion of the white race."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That was a sign or some sort of an indication of their status as citizens. And so the argument made by Justice Curtis then is that Taney's reading of history was that the founders had not intended for African-Americans to be part of the people or the citizens that were referred to in the text of the US Constitution. What Justice Taney has done here has basically created a blind spot for himself. And he goes on to point out that this is not his belief, this belief in Negro inferiority, but he said that it was a fixed and universal belief within the civilized portion of the white race. He said it was an axiom, a truth. But what's interesting is that he says this without a citation. He says that these aren't his views."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he goes on to point out that this is not his belief, this belief in Negro inferiority, but he said that it was a fixed and universal belief within the civilized portion of the white race. He said it was an axiom, a truth. But what's interesting is that he says this without a citation. He says that these aren't his views. These are the views of the framers, the great men who were high in literary accomplishment, high in their sense of honor. He said that they perfectly understood the language that they used and how it would be understood by others. And there's this great quote in the opinion where he says that they, the framers, knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the Negro race, which by common consent had been excluded from civilized governments and the family of nations and doomed to slavery."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He says that these aren't his views. These are the views of the framers, the great men who were high in literary accomplishment, high in their sense of honor. He said that they perfectly understood the language that they used and how it would be understood by others. And there's this great quote in the opinion where he says that they, the framers, knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the Negro race, which by common consent had been excluded from civilized governments and the family of nations and doomed to slavery. What Justice Taney has done here is he's attempted to rewrite history. So how did the American people respond to the Dred Scott decision at large? Were they generally for it or aghast by it?"}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there's this great quote in the opinion where he says that they, the framers, knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the Negro race, which by common consent had been excluded from civilized governments and the family of nations and doomed to slavery. What Justice Taney has done here is he's attempted to rewrite history. So how did the American people respond to the Dred Scott decision at large? Were they generally for it or aghast by it? Well, as you might expect, things were split exactly down the middle. What we see in the South is white Southerners believe that the ruling is a vindication of what they had been arguing. Southerners had been arguing for many years, going back to John C. Calhoun, that Southerners and that Southern slaveholders had a bundle of rights."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Were they generally for it or aghast by it? Well, as you might expect, things were split exactly down the middle. What we see in the South is white Southerners believe that the ruling is a vindication of what they had been arguing. Southerners had been arguing for many years, going back to John C. Calhoun, that Southerners and that Southern slaveholders had a bundle of rights. And they argued that they had the right to own slaves as property in the Southern states. They argued that they had a right to recapture fugitive slaves who escaped into the North. And they also argued that they had a right to take slaves into the West."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Southerners had been arguing for many years, going back to John C. Calhoun, that Southerners and that Southern slaveholders had a bundle of rights. And they argued that they had the right to own slaves as property in the Southern states. They argued that they had a right to recapture fugitive slaves who escaped into the North. And they also argued that they had a right to take slaves into the West. And so Southerners then feel that the court and the US Constitution are on their side. You see a lot of folks in the North who are hostile to what the court has done, because once again, they see it as further evidence that the court is dominated by the Democratic Party, by the slave power. And many of these folks then are going to be members of a new party, and that was of course, the Republican Party."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they also argued that they had a right to take slaves into the West. And so Southerners then feel that the court and the US Constitution are on their side. You see a lot of folks in the North who are hostile to what the court has done, because once again, they see it as further evidence that the court is dominated by the Democratic Party, by the slave power. And many of these folks then are going to be members of a new party, and that was of course, the Republican Party. I think the abolitionists were furious. And I think Frederick Douglass' statement, calling it a brazen misstatement of facts of history, a scandalous and devilish perversion of the Constitution resonated. And even future presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, that same summer that the case was decided, went out and denounced it publicly."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And many of these folks then are going to be members of a new party, and that was of course, the Republican Party. I think the abolitionists were furious. And I think Frederick Douglass' statement, calling it a brazen misstatement of facts of history, a scandalous and devilish perversion of the Constitution resonated. And even future presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, that same summer that the case was decided, went out and denounced it publicly. So Lincoln, of course, wins the election of November, 1860, which becomes a precipitating event of the Civil War. Do you see the Dred Scott decision as being a really important cause of the Civil War? Yeah, so these things are all linked, absolutely."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And even future presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, that same summer that the case was decided, went out and denounced it publicly. So Lincoln, of course, wins the election of November, 1860, which becomes a precipitating event of the Civil War. Do you see the Dred Scott decision as being a really important cause of the Civil War? Yeah, so these things are all linked, absolutely. Think about the ruling by Tawny and Dred Scott, ruling that slaveholders' rights are absolute. Tawny rules African Americans have no rights, slaveholders have total rights. This makes it possible for Lincoln to rise as a sort of political leader in the North, because he has something that he can strongly criticize."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yeah, so these things are all linked, absolutely. Think about the ruling by Tawny and Dred Scott, ruling that slaveholders' rights are absolute. Tawny rules African Americans have no rights, slaveholders have total rights. This makes it possible for Lincoln to rise as a sort of political leader in the North, because he has something that he can strongly criticize. Because Lincoln basically makes the argument that the founders had hoped for slavery to disappear ultimately, and Tawny's making exactly the opposite argument. So the interesting thing is, if you sort of think about how this story sort of ends, it ends in March of 1861, when Abraham Lincoln is sworn in as the 16th president, and who swears him in? Of course, Roger B. Tawny."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This makes it possible for Lincoln to rise as a sort of political leader in the North, because he has something that he can strongly criticize. Because Lincoln basically makes the argument that the founders had hoped for slavery to disappear ultimately, and Tawny's making exactly the opposite argument. So the interesting thing is, if you sort of think about how this story sort of ends, it ends in March of 1861, when Abraham Lincoln is sworn in as the 16th president, and who swears him in? Of course, Roger B. Tawny. So between the time when Lincoln was elected in November of 1860, and the time when he takes that oath of office in March of 1861, seven Southern slaveholding states, those are the states that leave the Federal Union first. Four other states, of course, will join them, but not until after the Civil War has already started. So there's no compromise of 1860."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Of course, Roger B. Tawny. So between the time when Lincoln was elected in November of 1860, and the time when he takes that oath of office in March of 1861, seven Southern slaveholding states, those are the states that leave the Federal Union first. Four other states, of course, will join them, but not until after the Civil War has already started. So there's no compromise of 1860. Instead, what we get is a four-year-long Civil War, where more than 620,000 Americans are killed. And at the end of that war, the North, the United States, is victorious, and slavery in the 13th Amendment is abolished forever. So how does the end of the Civil War relate back to the Dred Scott case?"}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So there's no compromise of 1860. Instead, what we get is a four-year-long Civil War, where more than 620,000 Americans are killed. And at the end of that war, the North, the United States, is victorious, and slavery in the 13th Amendment is abolished forever. So how does the end of the Civil War relate back to the Dred Scott case? The 13th Amendment ends slavery. The 14th Amendment has to sort of undermine or overturn the other part of the Supreme Court's ruling, which was this issue of the rights of those who previously had been held as slaves. And the 14th Amendment then is going to do that work by stating that all who were born in this country, by virtue of their birth here, are citizens, and that they have rights that will be protected by the federal government."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So how does the end of the Civil War relate back to the Dred Scott case? The 13th Amendment ends slavery. The 14th Amendment has to sort of undermine or overturn the other part of the Supreme Court's ruling, which was this issue of the rights of those who previously had been held as slaves. And the 14th Amendment then is going to do that work by stating that all who were born in this country, by virtue of their birth here, are citizens, and that they have rights that will be protected by the federal government. And if you think about it, what has changed, what has shifted, is the whole sort of national discourse of rights, from the emphasis on the rights of slaveholders that we see in 1857, to an emphasis on the rights of those who previously had been held as slaves, and arguably then what we see really, during the Civil War and Reconstruction, is the advent of a new sort of discourse focusing on human rights. And that, I would argue, is profoundly significant. So what happened to Dred Scott after this?"}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the 14th Amendment then is going to do that work by stating that all who were born in this country, by virtue of their birth here, are citizens, and that they have rights that will be protected by the federal government. And if you think about it, what has changed, what has shifted, is the whole sort of national discourse of rights, from the emphasis on the rights of slaveholders that we see in 1857, to an emphasis on the rights of those who previously had been held as slaves, and arguably then what we see really, during the Civil War and Reconstruction, is the advent of a new sort of discourse focusing on human rights. And that, I would argue, is profoundly significant. So what happened to Dred Scott after this? Did he and his wife live to see the end of the Civil War and the end of slavery? Unfortunately, Dred Scott did not. The Supreme Court renders its decision in 1857, but he dies, unfortunately, in 1858."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what happened to Dred Scott after this? Did he and his wife live to see the end of the Civil War and the end of slavery? Unfortunately, Dred Scott did not. The Supreme Court renders its decision in 1857, but he dies, unfortunately, in 1858. His wife, Harriet, though, lives on to about 1876. So she did live to see the end of the Civil War and the end of slavery. The Dred Scott case made clear at the time that the struggle for citizenship, and of course, the later struggle for civil rights, is about the desire to be treated with equal dignity, to be viewed as possessing equal humanity."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Supreme Court renders its decision in 1857, but he dies, unfortunately, in 1858. His wife, Harriet, though, lives on to about 1876. So she did live to see the end of the Civil War and the end of slavery. The Dred Scott case made clear at the time that the struggle for citizenship, and of course, the later struggle for civil rights, is about the desire to be treated with equal dignity, to be viewed as possessing equal humanity. And what is perhaps most moving, I think, about the Dred Scott case is the dignity with which the Scots carried themselves throughout the entire ordeal, despite the court's best efforts to deprive them of that dignity. It was ultimately Dred and Harriet who gained the respect of the nation. And it was the inhumanity of the court and the institution of slavery that was laid bare for all to see."}, {"video_title": "Dred Scott v. Sandford   The Civil War era (1844-1877)   US history   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Dred Scott case made clear at the time that the struggle for citizenship, and of course, the later struggle for civil rights, is about the desire to be treated with equal dignity, to be viewed as possessing equal humanity. And what is perhaps most moving, I think, about the Dred Scott case is the dignity with which the Scots carried themselves throughout the entire ordeal, despite the court's best efforts to deprive them of that dignity. It was ultimately Dred and Harriet who gained the respect of the nation. And it was the inhumanity of the court and the institution of slavery that was laid bare for all to see. So we've learned that the ruling in Dred Scott helped bring about the Civil War by further dividing the North and South over the issue of slavery. Opposition to the case's outcome propelled Abraham Lincoln to the national political stage, and opposition to Abraham Lincoln propelled slave states to secede after his election as president. But the Dred Scott case was also about the lives and fates of one man and his family."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In previous videos, we had talked about the 1896 Supreme Court case, Plessy versus Ferguson, which is a good one to know in general if you're studying United States history and or United States government. But this is where we got the principle of separate, separate but equal, where the Supreme Court said in 1896 that it was okay to have segregation. It was okay to separate folks on a racial basis as long as what they got was equal. This was a case around whether it was unconstitutional for an African American in Louisiana to have to sit in a separate rail car from white passengers. Now, as you can imagine, this idea of segregation and separate but equal, it was taken to justify racial segregation in all walks of life, including in schools. And what you see here is a map of the United States, and it's colored in by the degree of school segregation, educational segregation, as we enter into the 1950s. And what you could see is in these red states here, which is for the most part the southern states, it required the separation of races."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This was a case around whether it was unconstitutional for an African American in Louisiana to have to sit in a separate rail car from white passengers. Now, as you can imagine, this idea of segregation and separate but equal, it was taken to justify racial segregation in all walks of life, including in schools. And what you see here is a map of the United States, and it's colored in by the degree of school segregation, educational segregation, as we enter into the 1950s. And what you could see is in these red states here, which is for the most part the southern states, it required the separation of races. In the green states you see here, segregation was forbidden. And in the yellow and blue states, it was kind of in between. The yellow states had no legislation, and in the blue states it was limited, it wasn't required."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what you could see is in these red states here, which is for the most part the southern states, it required the separation of races. In the green states you see here, segregation was forbidden. And in the yellow and blue states, it was kind of in between. The yellow states had no legislation, and in the blue states it was limited, it wasn't required. And all of this comes to a head as we get into the 1950s in Topeka, Kansas. You have a situation where the NAACP, in coordination with 13 parents, tried to register African American students into white schools in Topeka, Kansas. The schools tried to prevent them, and it eventually goes to the United States Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The yellow states had no legislation, and in the blue states it was limited, it wasn't required. And all of this comes to a head as we get into the 1950s in Topeka, Kansas. You have a situation where the NAACP, in coordination with 13 parents, tried to register African American students into white schools in Topeka, Kansas. The schools tried to prevent them, and it eventually goes to the United States Supreme Court. In the case of Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, 1954, Oliver Brown was one of those 13 parents trying to get his daughter into an otherwise segregated school. And this is a seminal Supreme Court case, because here the Supreme Court revisits segregation, and essentially overturns Plessy versus Ferguson. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled, we conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The schools tried to prevent them, and it eventually goes to the United States Supreme Court. In the case of Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, 1954, Oliver Brown was one of those 13 parents trying to get his daughter into an otherwise segregated school. And this is a seminal Supreme Court case, because here the Supreme Court revisits segregation, and essentially overturns Plessy versus Ferguson. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled, we conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. And we cite the 14th Amendment a lot in these Supreme Court cases, and it never hurts to take another look at at least an excerpt of the 14th Amendment."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled, we conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. And we cite the 14th Amendment a lot in these Supreme Court cases, and it never hurts to take another look at at least an excerpt of the 14th Amendment. And this is a focus on the Equal Protection Clause. This is part of section one of the 14th Amendment. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and then this is the Equal Protection Clause, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And we cite the 14th Amendment a lot in these Supreme Court cases, and it never hurts to take another look at at least an excerpt of the 14th Amendment. And this is a focus on the Equal Protection Clause. This is part of section one of the 14th Amendment. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and then this is the Equal Protection Clause, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And this is a big deal, because not only does it say that, hey, segregation is fundamentally unconstitutional. What's also interesting about this is that this unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court then sets off a whole series of actions by politicians in those states that you saw where segregation was mandatory to try to go around the Supreme Court's decision. And so it's a case of how other branches of government might try to limit Supreme Court powers or try to ignore, in some cases, Supreme Court powers."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and then this is the Equal Protection Clause, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And this is a big deal, because not only does it say that, hey, segregation is fundamentally unconstitutional. What's also interesting about this is that this unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court then sets off a whole series of actions by politicians in those states that you saw where segregation was mandatory to try to go around the Supreme Court's decision. And so it's a case of how other branches of government might try to limit Supreme Court powers or try to ignore, in some cases, Supreme Court powers. A good example of this was Virginia Senator Harry Byrd. In 1956, shortly after the Brown versus Board of Education decision, he issues this Southern Manifesto where he gets 100 politicians in the South to essentially sign on saying, hey, we are going to do what we can legislatively to try to get around the Brown versus Board of Education decision. We are going to try to ensure that that does not go into effect in segregated states like Virginia."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so it's a case of how other branches of government might try to limit Supreme Court powers or try to ignore, in some cases, Supreme Court powers. A good example of this was Virginia Senator Harry Byrd. In 1956, shortly after the Brown versus Board of Education decision, he issues this Southern Manifesto where he gets 100 politicians in the South to essentially sign on saying, hey, we are going to do what we can legislatively to try to get around the Brown versus Board of Education decision. We are going to try to ensure that that does not go into effect in segregated states like Virginia. And later that year, in 1956, it took the form of this massive resistance movement where they had the Stanley Plan, named after the Virginia governor, in which they started to pass laws to try to make Brown versus Board of Education not take effect. One of them, for example, said that any school that actually desegregated would not receive state funds, and it authorized the governor to close those schools down. And this massive resistance continued and was challenged in the courts all the way to 1959, where you actually have the first integrated schools in the state of Virginia."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We are going to try to ensure that that does not go into effect in segregated states like Virginia. And later that year, in 1956, it took the form of this massive resistance movement where they had the Stanley Plan, named after the Virginia governor, in which they started to pass laws to try to make Brown versus Board of Education not take effect. One of them, for example, said that any school that actually desegregated would not receive state funds, and it authorized the governor to close those schools down. And this massive resistance continued and was challenged in the courts all the way to 1959, where you actually have the first integrated schools in the state of Virginia. Another state-level challenge to the ruling by the Supreme Court happened in 1957, where the governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, tried to actively prevent nine students, nine African-American students, from attending Little Rock Central High School. And so what you see in this picture over here, these are US Army troops sent by President Eisenhower to escort these nine students into Little Rock Central High School. These nine students are famously known as the Little Rock Nine."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this massive resistance continued and was challenged in the courts all the way to 1959, where you actually have the first integrated schools in the state of Virginia. Another state-level challenge to the ruling by the Supreme Court happened in 1957, where the governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, tried to actively prevent nine students, nine African-American students, from attending Little Rock Central High School. And so what you see in this picture over here, these are US Army troops sent by President Eisenhower to escort these nine students into Little Rock Central High School. These nine students are famously known as the Little Rock Nine. And this is actually a picture of Governor Orval Faubus later complaining about this intervention. And this continues on for some time. You fast-forward to 1963."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These nine students are famously known as the Little Rock Nine. And this is actually a picture of Governor Orval Faubus later complaining about this intervention. And this continues on for some time. You fast-forward to 1963. This is Alabama Governor George Wallace physically using himself to block two African-American students from registering at the University of Alabama. Once again in this situation, the president had to take action, this time John F. Kennedy. He federalized the National Guard, and he made them force Governor Wallace to step aside so that those students could register at the University of Alabama."}, {"video_title": "State checks on the judicial branch   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You fast-forward to 1963. This is Alabama Governor George Wallace physically using himself to block two African-American students from registering at the University of Alabama. Once again in this situation, the president had to take action, this time John F. Kennedy. He federalized the National Guard, and he made them force Governor Wallace to step aside so that those students could register at the University of Alabama. So the big picture here is that Brown versus Board of Education is a seminal case in American history. But it also tells us how the legislative branch and state governments might try to go around decisions that they don't like. Sometimes they might just ignore the decision until they're forced to pay attention to it, or they might try to legislate their way around it and have a fight in the court system until they're forced to go one way or the other."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What does a good citizen do? Take a minute to imagine your idea of a good citizen. What characteristics does that person have? What actions does that person take that contribute to their status as an active and virtuous citizen? I encourage you to pause the video here and write down a few words or examples. Okay, so what did you come up with? Did you think of someone who obeys the law, treats others with kindness, volunteers, maybe spends their money wisely?"}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What actions does that person take that contribute to their status as an active and virtuous citizen? I encourage you to pause the video here and write down a few words or examples. Okay, so what did you come up with? Did you think of someone who obeys the law, treats others with kindness, volunteers, maybe spends their money wisely? What about someone who is active in politics or organizes community responses to problems like starting a food drive? Or maybe you thought about someone who tries to solve problems facing society by advocating for change, maybe working to change laws or larger social structures in order to promote justice and equality. So which one is right?"}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Did you think of someone who obeys the law, treats others with kindness, volunteers, maybe spends their money wisely? What about someone who is active in politics or organizes community responses to problems like starting a food drive? Or maybe you thought about someone who tries to solve problems facing society by advocating for change, maybe working to change laws or larger social structures in order to promote justice and equality. So which one is right? Okay, yeah, you guessed it, it's a trick question. In fact, these are all models of good citizenship. And I wanna dive a little more deeply into each of them to give you a sense of what they mean."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So which one is right? Okay, yeah, you guessed it, it's a trick question. In fact, these are all models of good citizenship. And I wanna dive a little more deeply into each of them to give you a sense of what they mean. Because if you compare what you jotted down when I asked you to imagine a good citizen to what your friend or your parent or your teacher imagined, you might find that they had something entirely different in mind. So it's helpful to be able to name different visions for good citizenship so that you can probe a little more deeply into what someone really means when they're talking about it. The first model you might see is that of the personally responsible citizen."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I wanna dive a little more deeply into each of them to give you a sense of what they mean. Because if you compare what you jotted down when I asked you to imagine a good citizen to what your friend or your parent or your teacher imagined, you might find that they had something entirely different in mind. So it's helpful to be able to name different visions for good citizenship so that you can probe a little more deeply into what someone really means when they're talking about it. The first model you might see is that of the personally responsible citizen. This is a model of citizenship that focuses on the actions an individual can take to be a good member of their community, a personally responsible citizen fulfills their personal obligations and acts responsibly. They pay their taxes, vote, obey the law and volunteer to help the less fortunate. They are honest and work hard."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The first model you might see is that of the personally responsible citizen. This is a model of citizenship that focuses on the actions an individual can take to be a good member of their community, a personally responsible citizen fulfills their personal obligations and acts responsibly. They pay their taxes, vote, obey the law and volunteer to help the less fortunate. They are honest and work hard. What separates this model from the other two we're going to talk about is that the personally responsible citizen generally doesn't try to change society or lead efforts to improve their community. They just do their part. The second model I wanna talk about is participatory citizenship."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They are honest and work hard. What separates this model from the other two we're going to talk about is that the personally responsible citizen generally doesn't try to change society or lead efforts to improve their community. They just do their part. The second model I wanna talk about is participatory citizenship. This model emphasizes community action and organizing. The participatory citizen might create a group to advocate for environmental protection or organize a blood drive at their school or workplace. They believe in working collectively with others to address problems in their communities."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The second model I wanna talk about is participatory citizenship. This model emphasizes community action and organizing. The participatory citizen might create a group to advocate for environmental protection or organize a blood drive at their school or workplace. They believe in working collectively with others to address problems in their communities. They tend to work through established systems and groups to enact change, which distinguishes them from the last model I wanna talk about, the justice-oriented citizen. A big difference between the justice-oriented citizen and the participatory citizen is that participatory citizens don't attempt to change big underlying social problems like poverty or racism. They organize to meet the challenges of the world as it is."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They believe in working collectively with others to address problems in their communities. They tend to work through established systems and groups to enact change, which distinguishes them from the last model I wanna talk about, the justice-oriented citizen. A big difference between the justice-oriented citizen and the participatory citizen is that participatory citizens don't attempt to change big underlying social problems like poverty or racism. They organize to meet the challenges of the world as it is. So let's talk a little bit more about this third model, the justice-oriented citizen. The justice-oriented citizen is interested in addressing social issues and the larger structures that lead to injustice. They try to take a step back from society as it is to ask why problems happen and seek solutions to their root causes."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They organize to meet the challenges of the world as it is. So let's talk a little bit more about this third model, the justice-oriented citizen. The justice-oriented citizen is interested in addressing social issues and the larger structures that lead to injustice. They try to take a step back from society as it is to ask why problems happen and seek solutions to their root causes. So for a justice-oriented citizen, giving to charity or organizing a group to combat a social problem isn't enough. They wanna stop that problem from happening in the future. Now, I'm not telling you this because I want to convince you that there's a correct or a best way to be a good citizen."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They try to take a step back from society as it is to ask why problems happen and seek solutions to their root causes. So for a justice-oriented citizen, giving to charity or organizing a group to combat a social problem isn't enough. They wanna stop that problem from happening in the future. Now, I'm not telling you this because I want to convince you that there's a correct or a best way to be a good citizen. All three of these models are doing good in their communities, just in different ways and with different areas of focus. I'm also not saying that you have to choose one of these models to follow. There's nothing stopping you from doing a little bit of all three or taking one approach with an issue you care about and a different approach with another issue."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, I'm not telling you this because I want to convince you that there's a correct or a best way to be a good citizen. All three of these models are doing good in their communities, just in different ways and with different areas of focus. I'm also not saying that you have to choose one of these models to follow. There's nothing stopping you from doing a little bit of all three or taking one approach with an issue you care about and a different approach with another issue. But understanding these different approaches to citizenship will help you communicate more clearly with others about how you can work together to improve your community. Before we go, let's do a quick scenario so you can get in some practice. I'll give you some examples of students responding to a problem at their school, and you see if you can identify which model of citizenship each student represents."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's nothing stopping you from doing a little bit of all three or taking one approach with an issue you care about and a different approach with another issue. But understanding these different approaches to citizenship will help you communicate more clearly with others about how you can work together to improve your community. Before we go, let's do a quick scenario so you can get in some practice. I'll give you some examples of students responding to a problem at their school, and you see if you can identify which model of citizenship each student represents. So here's the problem. The marching band doesn't have enough money to attend the Battle of the Big Bands, where they're going to compete for best regional marching band. Gabe, who plays the tuba, decides to organize a bake sale in order to raise money for the band trip."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I'll give you some examples of students responding to a problem at their school, and you see if you can identify which model of citizenship each student represents. So here's the problem. The marching band doesn't have enough money to attend the Battle of the Big Bands, where they're going to compete for best regional marching band. Gabe, who plays the tuba, decides to organize a bake sale in order to raise money for the band trip. Bodie, who plays the flute, bakes brownies and buys Rice Krispie treats for all of her friends to support the cause. Nadia, who plays Alto Sax, wonders why the marching band doesn't have as much funding as some other school clubs. She presents in front of the school board requesting equal funding per student for extracurricular activities."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Gabe, who plays the tuba, decides to organize a bake sale in order to raise money for the band trip. Bodie, who plays the flute, bakes brownies and buys Rice Krispie treats for all of her friends to support the cause. Nadia, who plays Alto Sax, wonders why the marching band doesn't have as much funding as some other school clubs. She presents in front of the school board requesting equal funding per student for extracurricular activities. Which model of citizenship does each of these students represent? Gabe is modeling participatory citizenship. He is organizing a community response to a problem."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "She presents in front of the school board requesting equal funding per student for extracurricular activities. Which model of citizenship does each of these students represent? Gabe is modeling participatory citizenship. He is organizing a community response to a problem. Bodie is modeling personally responsible citizenship. She does her part in the bake sale. Nadia is modeling justice-oriented citizenship."}, {"video_title": "Models of citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He is organizing a community response to a problem. Bodie is modeling personally responsible citizenship. She does her part in the bake sale. Nadia is modeling justice-oriented citizenship. She wants to make sure that the systems are in place to keep problems like this from happening in the first place. So which model of citizenship do you think you most often practice? Does your family, school, social group promote one of these models more than another?"}, {"video_title": "Civil society   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what does it actually mean? A society that's civilized? Or maybe the part of society run by civilians rather than government agents? In fact, civil society is a little hard to define. Let's start with what it's not. It's not government or elected officials who are acting in their official capacity as representatives of the state or nation. That is the political sphere."}, {"video_title": "Civil society   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In fact, civil society is a little hard to define. Let's start with what it's not. It's not government or elected officials who are acting in their official capacity as representatives of the state or nation. That is the political sphere. It's also not businesses or corporations who exist primarily to make a profit. That's the economic sphere. And lastly, it's not purely private aspects of society, such as family or home life."}, {"video_title": "Civil society   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That is the political sphere. It's also not businesses or corporations who exist primarily to make a profit. That's the economic sphere. And lastly, it's not purely private aspects of society, such as family or home life. Civil society exists in between these three spheres and includes all of the non-governmental groups, associations, and institutions that citizens form and join. If you and your friends decide to create a neighborhood cleanup club, picking up litter from the streets and planting trees in the park, congratulations! You've just joined civil society."}, {"video_title": "Civil society   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And lastly, it's not purely private aspects of society, such as family or home life. Civil society exists in between these three spheres and includes all of the non-governmental groups, associations, and institutions that citizens form and join. If you and your friends decide to create a neighborhood cleanup club, picking up litter from the streets and planting trees in the park, congratulations! You've just joined civil society. Some other examples of civil society include religious organizations, professional associations, charitable groups, or interest groups. Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, are some of the most notable actors in civil society. These include organizations like Doctors Without Borders."}, {"video_title": "Civil society   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You've just joined civil society. Some other examples of civil society include religious organizations, professional associations, charitable groups, or interest groups. Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, are some of the most notable actors in civil society. These include organizations like Doctors Without Borders. Some organizations overlap a bit with other spheres. Labor unions, for example, are voluntary organizations, but they overlap with the economic sphere by petitioning businesses for better wages and working conditions. NGOs that have a humanitarian mission, like Amnesty International, may overlap with the political sphere, since they petition governments to change how they treat their citizens."}, {"video_title": "Civil society   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These include organizations like Doctors Without Borders. Some organizations overlap a bit with other spheres. Labor unions, for example, are voluntary organizations, but they overlap with the economic sphere by petitioning businesses for better wages and working conditions. NGOs that have a humanitarian mission, like Amnesty International, may overlap with the political sphere, since they petition governments to change how they treat their citizens. Some non-governmental actors are harder to classify, like the news media. Where does it fall in civil society? It usually has some goal of making money, but it also helps inform citizens about the workings of government and helps hold politicians accountable to the public."}, {"video_title": "Civil society   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "NGOs that have a humanitarian mission, like Amnesty International, may overlap with the political sphere, since they petition governments to change how they treat their citizens. Some non-governmental actors are harder to classify, like the news media. Where does it fall in civil society? It usually has some goal of making money, but it also helps inform citizens about the workings of government and helps hold politicians accountable to the public. So the media plays a central role in civil society. So what's important about civil society? Well, all of these organizations help connect people to their communities, and many of them strive to improve society by influencing these spheres."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Hi, this is Kim from Khan Academy, and today I'm learning more about the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment is one of the better known constitutional amendments, since we frequently hear references to suspects taking the fifth in TV shows and movies. But what does it actually mean to take the fifth? To learn more, I talked to two experts. Donald Dripps is the Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, and Stephen Salzberg is the Wallace and Beverly Woodbury University Professor of Law at George Washington Law School. So Professor Salzberg, could you talk a little bit about why the framers were interested in choosing to protect these rights in particular? The Fifth Amendment really addresses four different things."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To learn more, I talked to two experts. Donald Dripps is the Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, and Stephen Salzberg is the Wallace and Beverly Woodbury University Professor of Law at George Washington Law School. So Professor Salzberg, could you talk a little bit about why the framers were interested in choosing to protect these rights in particular? The Fifth Amendment really addresses four different things. One, it says that generally you can't be charged with a serious crime unless you're indicted by a grand jury. Two, it says you can't be subjected to double jeopardy. Three, it says you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Fifth Amendment really addresses four different things. One, it says that generally you can't be charged with a serious crime unless you're indicted by a grand jury. Two, it says you can't be subjected to double jeopardy. Three, it says you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself. And four, there is this due process right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. If you look at it, the three provisions, the grand jury provision, double jeopardy, and the privilege against self-incrimination all have a common history, and that is that in England, there was a time at which the crown, the king, basically tried to assert power to bring people to trial for charges the king wanted brought. And the grand jury served as a protection between the king and ordinary people."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Three, it says you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself. And four, there is this due process right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. If you look at it, the three provisions, the grand jury provision, double jeopardy, and the privilege against self-incrimination all have a common history, and that is that in England, there was a time at which the crown, the king, basically tried to assert power to bring people to trial for charges the king wanted brought. And the grand jury served as a protection between the king and ordinary people. Most of the provisions in the Bill of Rights are aimed at preventing the recurrence of some specific abuse that had been known to English history. There are different provisions in the Fifth Amendment that speak to different abuses. The fundamental one and the one that goes furthest back into legal history, back to Magna Carta and so on, is the due process clause."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the grand jury served as a protection between the king and ordinary people. Most of the provisions in the Bill of Rights are aimed at preventing the recurrence of some specific abuse that had been known to English history. There are different provisions in the Fifth Amendment that speak to different abuses. The fundamental one and the one that goes furthest back into legal history, back to Magna Carta and so on, is the due process clause. And that clause means that no person can be injured by the government except according to the law of the land and after a fair trial. And that, in the very, very distant past, back in the 13th century, King John had an infamous practice of executing supposed rebellious barons and then holding a solemn trial after the drawing and quartering. And so that notion of judgment before punishment is really, really fundamental."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The fundamental one and the one that goes furthest back into legal history, back to Magna Carta and so on, is the due process clause. And that clause means that no person can be injured by the government except according to the law of the land and after a fair trial. And that, in the very, very distant past, back in the 13th century, King John had an infamous practice of executing supposed rebellious barons and then holding a solemn trial after the drawing and quartering. And so that notion of judgment before punishment is really, really fundamental. That's what due process is about at its most basic level. Interesting, so can you say more about the due process clause here? What is due process?"}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so that notion of judgment before punishment is really, really fundamental. That's what due process is about at its most basic level. Interesting, so can you say more about the due process clause here? What is due process? Due process is an extraordinarily complicated concept. It means that there are certain procedural and substantive rules that must be honored in the way in which governments approach individuals and entities that they seek to regulate. It's not a simple bright line that in order to have due process, this is what is required."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What is due process? Due process is an extraordinarily complicated concept. It means that there are certain procedural and substantive rules that must be honored in the way in which governments approach individuals and entities that they seek to regulate. It's not a simple bright line that in order to have due process, this is what is required. Due process is somewhat flexible. It tends to provide more protections when individuals are faced with more serious consequences. So in terms of criminal law, it's generally understood that the most severe penalties that we have that can legally be imposed upon people are the death penalty, prison, and jail."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's not a simple bright line that in order to have due process, this is what is required. Due process is somewhat flexible. It tends to provide more protections when individuals are faced with more serious consequences. So in terms of criminal law, it's generally understood that the most severe penalties that we have that can legally be imposed upon people are the death penalty, prison, and jail. And generally you can't impose any of those except as punishment for a crime. And so the due process in the criminal arena is largely defined by the Bill of Rights and some common law understandings that have been carried forward. Let me give you a couple of examples."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in terms of criminal law, it's generally understood that the most severe penalties that we have that can legally be imposed upon people are the death penalty, prison, and jail. And generally you can't impose any of those except as punishment for a crime. And so the due process in the criminal arena is largely defined by the Bill of Rights and some common law understandings that have been carried forward. Let me give you a couple of examples. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the government must prove guilt in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. But that is a fundamental part of American law. The Supreme Court has held that that is part of what due process requires."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let me give you a couple of examples. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the government must prove guilt in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. But that is a fundamental part of American law. The Supreme Court has held that that is part of what due process requires. And that is the law throughout the United States, notwithstanding the fact you don't see it in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a unanimous jury in a criminal case is also not found anywhere in the Constitution. You mentioned a grand jury, so how is that different from an ordinary jury?"}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Supreme Court has held that that is part of what due process requires. And that is the law throughout the United States, notwithstanding the fact you don't see it in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a unanimous jury in a criminal case is also not found anywhere in the Constitution. You mentioned a grand jury, so how is that different from an ordinary jury? The grand jury served a very delicate role in founding era times because many, many prosecutions were brought by private persons. There were no police forces of the modern paramilitary 24-7 type. And a lot of law enforcement was done by self-help."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You mentioned a grand jury, so how is that different from an ordinary jury? The grand jury served a very delicate role in founding era times because many, many prosecutions were brought by private persons. There were no police forces of the modern paramilitary 24-7 type. And a lot of law enforcement was done by self-help. And prosecutions were privately funded and sometimes lay people would represent themselves pro se. In pressing a criminal prosecution. And the grand jury was there to make sure that people weren't subjected to vindictive or malicious prosecutions by ill-spirited neighbors and that sort of thing."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And a lot of law enforcement was done by self-help. And prosecutions were privately funded and sometimes lay people would represent themselves pro se. In pressing a criminal prosecution. And the grand jury was there to make sure that people weren't subjected to vindictive or malicious prosecutions by ill-spirited neighbors and that sort of thing. The framers probably had in mind a famous case of the Earl of Shaftesbury who was suspected of misdeeds and a grand jury famously refused to indict him. And so they saw it as one among many checks against the possible abuse of power by this new federal government. So a grand jury is a body that decides whether or not to bring a charge against an individual or an entity like a corporation."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the grand jury was there to make sure that people weren't subjected to vindictive or malicious prosecutions by ill-spirited neighbors and that sort of thing. The framers probably had in mind a famous case of the Earl of Shaftesbury who was suspected of misdeeds and a grand jury famously refused to indict him. And so they saw it as one among many checks against the possible abuse of power by this new federal government. So a grand jury is a body that decides whether or not to bring a charge against an individual or an entity like a corporation. The grand jury in federal court happens to be 23 people. But there isn't anything in the Constitution that actually says it has to be that number. Unlike a trial jury, which we call a petty jury, the grand jury does not have to be unanimous."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So a grand jury is a body that decides whether or not to bring a charge against an individual or an entity like a corporation. The grand jury in federal court happens to be 23 people. But there isn't anything in the Constitution that actually says it has to be that number. Unlike a trial jury, which we call a petty jury, the grand jury does not have to be unanimous. It basically decides whether to bring a charge by a majority vote. And the grand jury is specifically instructed that its job is not to decide guilt or innocence. Its job is to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a charge, which we usually say means probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and a particular person committed that crime."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Unlike a trial jury, which we call a petty jury, the grand jury does not have to be unanimous. It basically decides whether to bring a charge by a majority vote. And the grand jury is specifically instructed that its job is not to decide guilt or innocence. Its job is to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a charge, which we usually say means probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and a particular person committed that crime. So the grand jury's function is to bring a charge. The trial jury's function is to then decide guilt or innocence. Interesting."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Its job is to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a charge, which we usually say means probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and a particular person committed that crime. So the grand jury's function is to bring a charge. The trial jury's function is to then decide guilt or innocence. Interesting. So how about double jeopardy? This is something that I think we have a maybe rudimentary understanding of in popular culture. What does double jeopardy really mean?"}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Interesting. So how about double jeopardy? This is something that I think we have a maybe rudimentary understanding of in popular culture. What does double jeopardy really mean? If we didn't have a double jeopardy clause, the executive branch, if it could persuade a grand jury to charge somebody with a crime, could prosecute that person. And if the person was acquitted, the government could do it again, bring the same charge, do it again until they got a conviction. And that meant that an individual could be persecuted rather than prosecuted by continuing charges for the exact same thing."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What does double jeopardy really mean? If we didn't have a double jeopardy clause, the executive branch, if it could persuade a grand jury to charge somebody with a crime, could prosecute that person. And if the person was acquitted, the government could do it again, bring the same charge, do it again until they got a conviction. And that meant that an individual could be persecuted rather than prosecuted by continuing charges for the exact same thing. And the basic function of the double jeopardy clause is to basically tell the government, you get one shot. Trials are very stressful and very expensive, and the government has more resources than the typical defendant does. And so one concern is that you would just have the government have power to bankrupt people by retrying the case over and over again."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that meant that an individual could be persecuted rather than prosecuted by continuing charges for the exact same thing. And the basic function of the double jeopardy clause is to basically tell the government, you get one shot. Trials are very stressful and very expensive, and the government has more resources than the typical defendant does. And so one concern is that you would just have the government have power to bankrupt people by retrying the case over and over again. It becomes very, very complicated saying just what the same offense is. The current doctrine is that every statutory crime that includes different factual elements than every other statutory crime arising out of the same course of conduct is a separate crime. Are there any exceptions to double jeopardy or common misconceptions about how it works?"}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so one concern is that you would just have the government have power to bankrupt people by retrying the case over and over again. It becomes very, very complicated saying just what the same offense is. The current doctrine is that every statutory crime that includes different factual elements than every other statutory crime arising out of the same course of conduct is a separate crime. Are there any exceptions to double jeopardy or common misconceptions about how it works? Yes, there are two common misconceptions. One of them is that you can only be tried once for the same criminal activity. And the reason you can actually be prosecuted more than once is because in our system, federal government in each state is considered to be a separate sovereign, which means the federal government can charge someone with a crime, let's say a drug conspiracy."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Are there any exceptions to double jeopardy or common misconceptions about how it works? Yes, there are two common misconceptions. One of them is that you can only be tried once for the same criminal activity. And the reason you can actually be prosecuted more than once is because in our system, federal government in each state is considered to be a separate sovereign, which means the federal government can charge someone with a crime, let's say a drug conspiracy. The state of Virginia or California can also prosecute for the same criminal conduct. The states have their own criminal law to enforce. So technically someone could be prosecuted, let's say by the Commonwealth of Virginia for a drug conspiracy and convicted, and then could be prosecuted again by the federal government or another state for the same criminal activity and be convicted or acquitted, and the double jeopardy cause would not be violated."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the reason you can actually be prosecuted more than once is because in our system, federal government in each state is considered to be a separate sovereign, which means the federal government can charge someone with a crime, let's say a drug conspiracy. The state of Virginia or California can also prosecute for the same criminal conduct. The states have their own criminal law to enforce. So technically someone could be prosecuted, let's say by the Commonwealth of Virginia for a drug conspiracy and convicted, and then could be prosecuted again by the federal government or another state for the same criminal activity and be convicted or acquitted, and the double jeopardy cause would not be violated. The second thing about double jeopardy is that it only protects you from being prosecuted a second time by the same sovereign for the same crime. It doesn't protect you from being prosecuted for a different crime. Suppose the state of California prosecutes a defendant for murder and the defendant is acquitted."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So technically someone could be prosecuted, let's say by the Commonwealth of Virginia for a drug conspiracy and convicted, and then could be prosecuted again by the federal government or another state for the same criminal activity and be convicted or acquitted, and the double jeopardy cause would not be violated. The second thing about double jeopardy is that it only protects you from being prosecuted a second time by the same sovereign for the same crime. It doesn't protect you from being prosecuted for a different crime. Suppose the state of California prosecutes a defendant for murder and the defendant is acquitted. The state of California could then bring a second prosecution for a kidnapping of the same victim that actually occurred before the murder. And because that's a different crime, the double jeopardy cause doesn't bar a separate prosecution. So there's also a clause here that says an individual shall not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Suppose the state of California prosecutes a defendant for murder and the defendant is acquitted. The state of California could then bring a second prosecution for a kidnapping of the same victim that actually occurred before the murder. And because that's a different crime, the double jeopardy cause doesn't bar a separate prosecution. So there's also a clause here that says an individual shall not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. So this is what we call taking the fifth, right? What does that mean? So the Fifth Amendment privilege is a privilege that can be asserted by anyone who is called to answer by agents of the government."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So there's also a clause here that says an individual shall not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. So this is what we call taking the fifth, right? What does that mean? So the Fifth Amendment privilege is a privilege that can be asserted by anyone who is called to answer by agents of the government. And to claim the privilege, it has to be the case that the witness is being compelled to speak, will suffer adverse consequences if she doesn't answer the questions the government officers want her to answer. Those answers have to tend to incriminate the witness and those answers have to be testimonial. That is to say, they have to in some way constitute witnessing."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the Fifth Amendment privilege is a privilege that can be asserted by anyone who is called to answer by agents of the government. And to claim the privilege, it has to be the case that the witness is being compelled to speak, will suffer adverse consequences if she doesn't answer the questions the government officers want her to answer. Those answers have to tend to incriminate the witness and those answers have to be testimonial. That is to say, they have to in some way constitute witnessing. Good lawyers, good lawyers will generally advise their clients to take the fifth, that is claim their privilege against self-incrimination almost any time that the government is seriously investigating them. And the reason is people's memories are often bad, that when people are asked questions, they may believe that something happened in a certain way, but they haven't gone back to review it. And when people make mistakes, simple mistakes that are made in response to a question may look like people deliberately lied, they may make someone look like they were attempting to deceive investigators and therefore winning down individuals who are being investigated have good reason to invoke their privilege against self-incrimination."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That is to say, they have to in some way constitute witnessing. Good lawyers, good lawyers will generally advise their clients to take the fifth, that is claim their privilege against self-incrimination almost any time that the government is seriously investigating them. And the reason is people's memories are often bad, that when people are asked questions, they may believe that something happened in a certain way, but they haven't gone back to review it. And when people make mistakes, simple mistakes that are made in response to a question may look like people deliberately lied, they may make someone look like they were attempting to deceive investigators and therefore winning down individuals who are being investigated have good reason to invoke their privilege against self-incrimination. Historically, there were two things that the Fifth Amendment privilege was really supposed to prevent. One was that while the English system relied on grand juries and petty juries and cross-examination confrontational trials, the European system of the founding era, even as late as the end of the 18th century, still relied on juridical torture. So if there was a lot of preliminary proof about against a super probable cause against a suspect in say France or Germany, the judges were authorized to torture the target into confessing."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And when people make mistakes, simple mistakes that are made in response to a question may look like people deliberately lied, they may make someone look like they were attempting to deceive investigators and therefore winning down individuals who are being investigated have good reason to invoke their privilege against self-incrimination. Historically, there were two things that the Fifth Amendment privilege was really supposed to prevent. One was that while the English system relied on grand juries and petty juries and cross-examination confrontational trials, the European system of the founding era, even as late as the end of the 18th century, still relied on juridical torture. So if there was a lot of preliminary proof about against a super probable cause against a suspect in say France or Germany, the judges were authorized to torture the target into confessing. They wanted to adopt this inquisitorial practices of continental Europe. And the other great abuse behind the privilege was the Court of Star Chamber's use of the oath ex officio, which was witnesses were called before the Star Chamber without knowing what the investigation was about, whether they were a target, what they were suspected of doing. And the first thing that happened was they were obliged to swear an oath."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if there was a lot of preliminary proof about against a super probable cause against a suspect in say France or Germany, the judges were authorized to torture the target into confessing. They wanted to adopt this inquisitorial practices of continental Europe. And the other great abuse behind the privilege was the Court of Star Chamber's use of the oath ex officio, which was witnesses were called before the Star Chamber without knowing what the investigation was about, whether they were a target, what they were suspected of doing. And the first thing that happened was they were obliged to swear an oath. And there was a famous case involving a man named John Lilburn who refused to take the oath and was torturously punished by the Court of Star Chamber for refusing to take that oath. They pilloried him and they flogged him. And his case was seen as kind of an example of the kinds of abuses that might be done by asking questions subject to oaths where the answer might incriminate you or expose you to perjury or expose your soul to eternal consequences."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the first thing that happened was they were obliged to swear an oath. And there was a famous case involving a man named John Lilburn who refused to take the oath and was torturously punished by the Court of Star Chamber for refusing to take that oath. They pilloried him and they flogged him. And his case was seen as kind of an example of the kinds of abuses that might be done by asking questions subject to oaths where the answer might incriminate you or expose you to perjury or expose your soul to eternal consequences. And so those two things were behind the privilege against self-incrimination. The founders didn't want either of those to come back from the past to haunt the new continent. Say that I've committed a crime."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And his case was seen as kind of an example of the kinds of abuses that might be done by asking questions subject to oaths where the answer might incriminate you or expose you to perjury or expose your soul to eternal consequences. And so those two things were behind the privilege against self-incrimination. The founders didn't want either of those to come back from the past to haunt the new continent. Say that I've committed a crime. What might happen? Are police or investigators required to tell me about my right not to self-incriminate? Starting in 1966, in the case that many people have now heard of, Miranda versus Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that when a person is in custody, that is generally has been arrested, and the investigators or prosecutors want to question the suspect, they have to give a series of warnings, which are widely known as the Miranda warnings."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Say that I've committed a crime. What might happen? Are police or investigators required to tell me about my right not to self-incriminate? Starting in 1966, in the case that many people have now heard of, Miranda versus Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that when a person is in custody, that is generally has been arrested, and the investigators or prosecutors want to question the suspect, they have to give a series of warnings, which are widely known as the Miranda warnings. In short, they have to say to the suspect, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have a lawyer present during any questioning."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Starting in 1966, in the case that many people have now heard of, Miranda versus Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that when a person is in custody, that is generally has been arrested, and the investigators or prosecutors want to question the suspect, they have to give a series of warnings, which are widely known as the Miranda warnings. In short, they have to say to the suspect, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have a lawyer present during any questioning. And if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. When the suspect is in custody, they have to give the famous Miranda warning that everybody knows from movies and television and so forth. And that's the one case where the government is required to be proactive."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have the right to have a lawyer present during any questioning. And if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. When the suspect is in custody, they have to give the famous Miranda warning that everybody knows from movies and television and so forth. And that's the one case where the government is required to be proactive. In front of a congressional committee or a grand jury investigation, or if you're just a witness at a civil trial and there's a question that might expose you to criminal liability, you have to claim the privilege. You have to say, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me. When the suspect is under arrest and the police wanna question him, they have a different duty."}, {"video_title": "The Fifth Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's the one case where the government is required to be proactive. In front of a congressional committee or a grand jury investigation, or if you're just a witness at a civil trial and there's a question that might expose you to criminal liability, you have to claim the privilege. You have to say, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me. When the suspect is under arrest and the police wanna question him, they have a different duty. They have a duty to proactively give him a warning to make sure that he understands his rights, that he doesn't have to say anything to the police, that what he does say could be admissible against him. So we've learned that the Fifth Amendment protects citizens from possible abuses of power by the government when an individual is charged with a crime. It requires a grand jury to determine whether an individual should be indicted for a crime, limits the number of times an individual can be tried for the same crime, protects people from self-incrimination, and requires that the government follow fair procedures in prosecuting the law."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Article Six is, as we'll soon see, kind of a constitutional grab bag. It covers debts, religious tests for office, and it establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. To learn more about what binds these diverse ideas together, I sought out the help of two experts. Kermit Roosevelt is a professor of law specializing in constitutional law and conflict of laws at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. And Michael Ramsey is professor of law and director of international and comparative law programs at the University of San Diego School of Law. So let's start out talking about the debts portion of Article Six. Professor Roosevelt, why were the framers so interested in debt?"}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Kermit Roosevelt is a professor of law specializing in constitutional law and conflict of laws at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. And Michael Ramsey is professor of law and director of international and comparative law programs at the University of San Diego School of Law. So let's start out talking about the debts portion of Article Six. Professor Roosevelt, why were the framers so interested in debt? What was the historical context that led them to explicitly address debt in Article Six? Well, debt is important generally because nations often need to borrow money. And specifically with the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government had been borrowing money to pay for the Revolutionary War."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Professor Roosevelt, why were the framers so interested in debt? What was the historical context that led them to explicitly address debt in Article Six? Well, debt is important generally because nations often need to borrow money. And specifically with the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government had been borrowing money to pay for the Revolutionary War. So there was a question, we're moving from a sort of loose confederation, almost like a treaty between nations, under the Articles of Confederation, to a single unitary country with a stronger national government under the Constitution. And there's a question, is it still the same country? Will the new United States pay the debts of the old United States?"}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And specifically with the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government had been borrowing money to pay for the Revolutionary War. So there was a question, we're moving from a sort of loose confederation, almost like a treaty between nations, under the Articles of Confederation, to a single unitary country with a stronger national government under the Constitution. And there's a question, is it still the same country? Will the new United States pay the debts of the old United States? Now, there's a general principle of international law that a successor government undertakes the obligations of the predecessor. So you wouldn't necessarily think this would be a problem, but I think they were particularly concerned because the idea of a republic was a somewhat new one, at least in the 18th century, somewhat unusual one. And the change of a Republican government might cause some worries in Europe where this money was owed."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Will the new United States pay the debts of the old United States? Now, there's a general principle of international law that a successor government undertakes the obligations of the predecessor. So you wouldn't necessarily think this would be a problem, but I think they were particularly concerned because the idea of a republic was a somewhat new one, at least in the 18th century, somewhat unusual one. And the change of a Republican government might cause some worries in Europe where this money was owed. So I think they just wanted to reassure all of the creditors that even if they were changing their method of government, that that wasn't going to affect any of the debts. What might have happened had they decided not to pay those debts? If they decided not to pay the debts, then other countries would probably have been much less willing to lend money to the new United States, because they might've thought, well, you know, another change in government could occur."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the change of a Republican government might cause some worries in Europe where this money was owed. So I think they just wanted to reassure all of the creditors that even if they were changing their method of government, that that wasn't going to affect any of the debts. What might have happened had they decided not to pay those debts? If they decided not to pay the debts, then other countries would probably have been much less willing to lend money to the new United States, because they might've thought, well, you know, another change in government could occur. There was substantial question throughout the world whether the United States would be able to survive in the face of all the challenges that they had after gaining their independence. So in order to make it seem that the United States was a country that could be trusted, a country that could be expected to stick around and not collapse into chaos or revert to colonial status, one of the most important things for them was to show that the debts would be honored, because a failure to honor debts would suggest that the country did not in fact have true sovereignty and was not prepared to be a actor on the international stage that could be trusted. Another interesting thing to contrast this to is the treatment of debts after the Civil War, where of course, the United States, the federal government, paid its own debts, but there's a provision in the 14th Amendment explicitly repudiating the Confederate debt."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If they decided not to pay the debts, then other countries would probably have been much less willing to lend money to the new United States, because they might've thought, well, you know, another change in government could occur. There was substantial question throughout the world whether the United States would be able to survive in the face of all the challenges that they had after gaining their independence. So in order to make it seem that the United States was a country that could be trusted, a country that could be expected to stick around and not collapse into chaos or revert to colonial status, one of the most important things for them was to show that the debts would be honored, because a failure to honor debts would suggest that the country did not in fact have true sovereignty and was not prepared to be a actor on the international stage that could be trusted. Another interesting thing to contrast this to is the treatment of debts after the Civil War, where of course, the United States, the federal government, paid its own debts, but there's a provision in the 14th Amendment explicitly repudiating the Confederate debt. So if you loaned money to the Confederate States of America, you're never getting that back, because we didn't treat that as a valid government that would be continued going forward. Another thing that it illustrates is that the Constitution in some respects was a visionary document that was concerned with the long-term future of the United States, but in other respects, it responded to very immediate practical problems that the framers faced in their day. They were thinking about not just the future of the country for the ages, and they were thinking about that, but they weren't thinking just about that."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Another interesting thing to contrast this to is the treatment of debts after the Civil War, where of course, the United States, the federal government, paid its own debts, but there's a provision in the 14th Amendment explicitly repudiating the Confederate debt. So if you loaned money to the Confederate States of America, you're never getting that back, because we didn't treat that as a valid government that would be continued going forward. Another thing that it illustrates is that the Constitution in some respects was a visionary document that was concerned with the long-term future of the United States, but in other respects, it responded to very immediate practical problems that the framers faced in their day. They were thinking about not just the future of the country for the ages, and they were thinking about that, but they weren't thinking just about that. They were also thinking about reassuring France with respect to the debts that existed right at that moment. So there's a lot going on in Article VI, and specifically, it talks about the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. So what's important about that statement?"}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They were thinking about not just the future of the country for the ages, and they were thinking about that, but they weren't thinking just about that. They were also thinking about reassuring France with respect to the debts that existed right at that moment. So there's a lot going on in Article VI, and specifically, it talks about the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. So what's important about that statement? What's important about that is that it means the Constitution is our highest law. It prevails over any other kind of law in a conflict. So one thing that that means is the Constitution is supreme over state law, and then the Constitution actually goes on to talk about that a little bit more."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what's important about that statement? What's important about that is that it means the Constitution is our highest law. It prevails over any other kind of law in a conflict. So one thing that that means is the Constitution is supreme over state law, and then the Constitution actually goes on to talk about that a little bit more. But it also means the Constitution is supreme over federal law. So everyone is bound by the Constitution. The states can't go against it."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So one thing that that means is the Constitution is supreme over state law, and then the Constitution actually goes on to talk about that a little bit more. But it also means the Constitution is supreme over federal law. So everyone is bound by the Constitution. The states can't go against it. Congress can't go past it. The president can't violate constitutional restrictions. The Constitution is really the last word."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The states can't go against it. Congress can't go past it. The president can't violate constitutional restrictions. The Constitution is really the last word. It's the pinnacle or the keystone of the arch of American democracy. And that's why we can say that things are unconstitutional, that laws are unconstitutional, and therefore, invalid. And most importantly, it's why the Supreme Court can say that laws are unconstitutional and invalid."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Constitution is really the last word. It's the pinnacle or the keystone of the arch of American democracy. And that's why we can say that things are unconstitutional, that laws are unconstitutional, and therefore, invalid. And most importantly, it's why the Supreme Court can say that laws are unconstitutional and invalid. It creates a superior law that limits the laws that can be passed by the other parts of the government. It creates a hierarchy of laws, and in doing so, it assures that we have a single set of rules that applies to all the states and to the federal government, and it can't be changed except by an amendment, which is relatively difficult to do. There's a procedure in the Constitution for how you can amend the Constitution, but until amended, the Constitution as written is our superior law."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And most importantly, it's why the Supreme Court can say that laws are unconstitutional and invalid. It creates a superior law that limits the laws that can be passed by the other parts of the government. It creates a hierarchy of laws, and in doing so, it assures that we have a single set of rules that applies to all the states and to the federal government, and it can't be changed except by an amendment, which is relatively difficult to do. There's a procedure in the Constitution for how you can amend the Constitution, but until amended, the Constitution as written is our superior law. And that was different from the way that the framers, the rules the framers were used to under the English system, where they didn't have a written Constitution. They had an unwritten Constitution, but that Constitution was subject to change by Parliament. So has the supremacy of the Constitution been tested over time?"}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's a procedure in the Constitution for how you can amend the Constitution, but until amended, the Constitution as written is our superior law. And that was different from the way that the framers, the rules the framers were used to under the English system, where they didn't have a written Constitution. They had an unwritten Constitution, but that Constitution was subject to change by Parliament. So has the supremacy of the Constitution been tested over time? There haven't been a lot of claims that the Constitution is not supreme. So generally speaking, everyone gives at least lip service to this idea. What's been tested is more the question of who gets to decide what the Constitution means and when something conflicts with it."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So has the supremacy of the Constitution been tested over time? There haven't been a lot of claims that the Constitution is not supreme. So generally speaking, everyone gives at least lip service to this idea. What's been tested is more the question of who gets to decide what the Constitution means and when something conflicts with it. So if you want the Constitution and federal law to be supreme, probably you would wanna have someone in the federal government deciding when there's a conflict, say, with state law. And the forms that resistance has taken over the years are more states saying, not we can go against the Constitution, we're above the Constitution, but states saying, we don't think what we're doing violates the Constitution, right? And you, the Supreme Court, you think it does, but you're wrong."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What's been tested is more the question of who gets to decide what the Constitution means and when something conflicts with it. So if you want the Constitution and federal law to be supreme, probably you would wanna have someone in the federal government deciding when there's a conflict, say, with state law. And the forms that resistance has taken over the years are more states saying, not we can go against the Constitution, we're above the Constitution, but states saying, we don't think what we're doing violates the Constitution, right? And you, the Supreme Court, you think it does, but you're wrong. In the 19th century, just before the Civil War, the Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that African-Americans could not be citizens of the United States, even if they were freed slaves. And President Lincoln believed that that was wrong. He said that there was nothing in the Constitution that denied that, the ability of them to be citizens."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you, the Supreme Court, you think it does, but you're wrong. In the 19th century, just before the Civil War, the Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that African-Americans could not be citizens of the United States, even if they were freed slaves. And President Lincoln believed that that was wrong. He said that there was nothing in the Constitution that denied that, the ability of them to be citizens. And he said that the Supreme Court had misinterpreted the Constitution, and he would not accept the Supreme Court's ruling in that regard. Later in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution barred segregation, particularly in schools, in the Brown versus Board of Education case. But many Southern governors and other institutions throughout the South thought that the Supreme Court had gotten that one wrong, and they refused to abide by what the Supreme Court had said the Constitution means."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He said that there was nothing in the Constitution that denied that, the ability of them to be citizens. And he said that the Supreme Court had misinterpreted the Constitution, and he would not accept the Supreme Court's ruling in that regard. Later in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution barred segregation, particularly in schools, in the Brown versus Board of Education case. But many Southern governors and other institutions throughout the South thought that the Supreme Court had gotten that one wrong, and they refused to abide by what the Supreme Court had said the Constitution means. What they said was not, the Constitution doesn't bind us, but we know what the Constitution means better than you, Supreme Court, you're wrong, you're making this up, it's political, let's not judge it. Another thing that Article VI talks about is religious tests. Why were the framers so interested in preventing religious tests in government?"}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But many Southern governors and other institutions throughout the South thought that the Supreme Court had gotten that one wrong, and they refused to abide by what the Supreme Court had said the Constitution means. What they said was not, the Constitution doesn't bind us, but we know what the Constitution means better than you, Supreme Court, you're wrong, you're making this up, it's political, let's not judge it. Another thing that Article VI talks about is religious tests. Why were the framers so interested in preventing religious tests in government? What sort of historical evils were they trying to prevent? So this is connected to the basic idea of the separation of church and state. And you separate church and state, really, to protect both of those things."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why were the framers so interested in preventing religious tests in government? What sort of historical evils were they trying to prevent? So this is connected to the basic idea of the separation of church and state. And you separate church and state, really, to protect both of those things. So you wanna protect religion from being corrupted by political considerations, but you also wanna protect your political system from being a battleground between rival religions. So where this comes from is that in England, they had had a series of what they called test acts. And what the test acts did was it required for people to be eligible for government offices, that people had to be members of the Church of England, and that other religious groups, they were barred by the test acts from holding government office."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you separate church and state, really, to protect both of those things. So you wanna protect religion from being corrupted by political considerations, but you also wanna protect your political system from being a battleground between rival religions. So where this comes from is that in England, they had had a series of what they called test acts. And what the test acts did was it required for people to be eligible for government offices, that people had to be members of the Church of England, and that other religious groups, they were barred by the test acts from holding government office. So actually, many of those minority religions, many adherents of those, ended up coming to the American colonies to gain some measure of religious freedom. The Pilgrims were an example of that. There was a Catholic colony in Maryland."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what the test acts did was it required for people to be eligible for government offices, that people had to be members of the Church of England, and that other religious groups, they were barred by the test acts from holding government office. So actually, many of those minority religions, many adherents of those, ended up coming to the American colonies to gain some measure of religious freedom. The Pilgrims were an example of that. There was a Catholic colony in Maryland. And just generally speaking, many of the people, many of the colonists who came over were people who were not part of the main established church in England. And so you can see why they would not wanna have something like the test acts. And they wanted to make clear that in the new national government, that any religion or no religion would be allowed for government office holders."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There was a Catholic colony in Maryland. And just generally speaking, many of the people, many of the colonists who came over were people who were not part of the main established church in England. And so you can see why they would not wanna have something like the test acts. And they wanted to make clear that in the new national government, that any religion or no religion would be allowed for government office holders. Do you think it's true that we don't have religious tests or oaths in the United States? How about the practice of swearing on a Bible during the presidential inauguration? Well, the practice of swearing on a Bible is very interesting, as is the fact that when the president recites the oath of office, every president, going back to George Washington, has added on to the end of it, so help me God."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they wanted to make clear that in the new national government, that any religion or no religion would be allowed for government office holders. Do you think it's true that we don't have religious tests or oaths in the United States? How about the practice of swearing on a Bible during the presidential inauguration? Well, the practice of swearing on a Bible is very interesting, as is the fact that when the president recites the oath of office, every president, going back to George Washington, has added on to the end of it, so help me God. There's actually an oath in the constitution the president has to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. But the constitution doesn't say, so help me God. The presidents just add that on on their own."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the practice of swearing on a Bible is very interesting, as is the fact that when the president recites the oath of office, every president, going back to George Washington, has added on to the end of it, so help me God. There's actually an oath in the constitution the president has to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. But the constitution doesn't say, so help me God. The presidents just add that on on their own. And actually that sort of illustrates the way in which the constitution treats religion, which is it can't be part of government in an official sense. But we know that members of government are also people, and they have religious beliefs that are important to them. And we don't demand that they exclude religion from their lives, we just demand that it be separated from government authority."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The presidents just add that on on their own. And actually that sort of illustrates the way in which the constitution treats religion, which is it can't be part of government in an official sense. But we know that members of government are also people, and they have religious beliefs that are important to them. And we don't demand that they exclude religion from their lives, we just demand that it be separated from government authority. So you can swear on a Bible if you want to. You don't have to. You can swear on some other religious book."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And we don't demand that they exclude religion from their lives, we just demand that it be separated from government authority. So you can swear on a Bible if you want to. You don't have to. You can swear on some other religious book. We had a member of Congress take an oath of office on a Quran. So individual government officials are allowed to include religion insofar as it's about them personally. You know, what you think is appropriate to mark this occasion."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You can swear on some other religious book. We had a member of Congress take an oath of office on a Quran. So individual government officials are allowed to include religion insofar as it's about them personally. You know, what you think is appropriate to mark this occasion. What solemnifies this oath for you. You can do that. But we can't require it, and they can't make the exercise of their power religious in nature."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You know, what you think is appropriate to mark this occasion. What solemnifies this oath for you. You can do that. But we can't require it, and they can't make the exercise of their power religious in nature. So you can't, as a government official, exercise your power on religious grounds. Something that strikes me about Article Six is that it addresses so many different things. Do you have a sense of why debts and constitutional supremacy and religious tests are all in one article?"}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But we can't require it, and they can't make the exercise of their power religious in nature. So you can't, as a government official, exercise your power on religious grounds. Something that strikes me about Article Six is that it addresses so many different things. Do you have a sense of why debts and constitutional supremacy and religious tests are all in one article? Article Six, as you said, is a little bit of a grab bag. It's not entirely clear how these different pieces of Article Six relate to each other. And I think they were just things that the framers wanted in the Constitution and didn't know for sure where else to put them."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Do you have a sense of why debts and constitutional supremacy and religious tests are all in one article? Article Six, as you said, is a little bit of a grab bag. It's not entirely clear how these different pieces of Article Six relate to each other. And I think they were just things that the framers wanted in the Constitution and didn't know for sure where else to put them. I'm not exactly sure why the debts are there. If I had to say something about Article Six, it would be it's sort of the glue that holds the constitutional architecture together. So maybe the debts are in there to explain the continuity between the US government under the Articles of Confederation and the US government under the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I think they were just things that the framers wanted in the Constitution and didn't know for sure where else to put them. I'm not exactly sure why the debts are there. If I had to say something about Article Six, it would be it's sort of the glue that holds the constitutional architecture together. So maybe the debts are in there to explain the continuity between the US government under the Articles of Confederation and the US government under the Constitution. Then the Supremacy Clause explains how all of the different parts of the federal system are supposed to fit together. And what the Supremacy Clause is saying is the Constitution is above all of them. The Constitution connects them all."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So maybe the debts are in there to explain the continuity between the US government under the Articles of Confederation and the US government under the Constitution. Then the Supremacy Clause explains how all of the different parts of the federal system are supposed to fit together. And what the Supremacy Clause is saying is the Constitution is above all of them. The Constitution connects them all. Everyone has to abide by the Constitution. And it tells you the Constitution is the highest law, then you've got federal law, and then below that is state law, so that if there's a conflict between federal law and state law, the federal law is gonna win. And then the last part of Article Six is sort of doing the same thing, because what holds a country together?"}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Constitution connects them all. Everyone has to abide by the Constitution. And it tells you the Constitution is the highest law, then you've got federal law, and then below that is state law, so that if there's a conflict between federal law and state law, the federal law is gonna win. And then the last part of Article Six is sort of doing the same thing, because what holds a country together? What binds people into a single people? In a lot of countries at the time of the founding, it was religion. Religion was the glue that held the society together."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then the last part of Article Six is sort of doing the same thing, because what holds a country together? What binds people into a single people? In a lot of countries at the time of the founding, it was religion. Religion was the glue that held the society together. And if you weren't a member of that religion, you were an outsider, you were a second-class citizen, you would be shunned and not given equal rights in some ways. The last clause of Article Six says something sort of similar about America, except it explicitly says it's not religion that binds us together. No religious test can be required."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Religion was the glue that held the society together. And if you weren't a member of that religion, you were an outsider, you were a second-class citizen, you would be shunned and not given equal rights in some ways. The last clause of Article Six says something sort of similar about America, except it explicitly says it's not religion that binds us together. No religious test can be required. But you do have to take an oath. What do you have to pledge to support? You have to pledge to support the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "No religious test can be required. But you do have to take an oath. What do you have to pledge to support? You have to pledge to support the Constitution. So there again, it's telling you the Constitution is what we all have in common. That's what makes us Americans. That really is the glue that binds our society together."}, {"video_title": "Article VI of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have to pledge to support the Constitution. So there again, it's telling you the Constitution is what we all have in common. That's what makes us Americans. That really is the glue that binds our society together. So we've learned that Article Six is, as Professor Roosevelt put it, the glue that binds the country together. In assuming the debts from the era of the Articles of Confederation, Article Six established the continuity of US government. It also placed the Constitution, not religion, as the supreme law of the United States."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So the year is 1816, where after the War of 1812, wars are expensive, the United States, the federal government, wants to create the second bank of the United States. The charter for the first bank of the United States had ended a few years ago and had not been extended. And the reason why a bank is useful for a federal government, a bank can be a place to store taxes that are collected from people, it could be a place to issue debts, to issue bank notes, think paper currency. And so the second bank of the United States is created. It is headquartered in Philadelphia right over here in 1816. And then in 1817, they open up a branch in Baltimore, right over there. And this is where things get a little bit messy, because it turns out that the Maryland legislature, Baltimore is in Maryland, decides to pass a law to tax any banks that have charters from outside of Maryland."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And so the second bank of the United States is created. It is headquartered in Philadelphia right over here in 1816. And then in 1817, they open up a branch in Baltimore, right over there. And this is where things get a little bit messy, because it turns out that the Maryland legislature, Baltimore is in Maryland, decides to pass a law to tax any banks that have charters from outside of Maryland. Well, it turns out that the branch of the second bank of the United States was the only bank in Maryland that was chartered outside of Maryland, and the law itself seems to be targeted at that bank. The law taxes notes issued by the bank. The head of that branch, of the Baltimore branch of the second bank of the United States, James McCullough, he refuses to pay this tax."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And this is where things get a little bit messy, because it turns out that the Maryland legislature, Baltimore is in Maryland, decides to pass a law to tax any banks that have charters from outside of Maryland. Well, it turns out that the branch of the second bank of the United States was the only bank in Maryland that was chartered outside of Maryland, and the law itself seems to be targeted at that bank. The law taxes notes issued by the bank. The head of that branch, of the Baltimore branch of the second bank of the United States, James McCullough, he refuses to pay this tax. He says, hey, we are a federally chartered bank, you have no right to tax us. Eventually, it gets appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. And there are two main questions that need to be answered."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "The head of that branch, of the Baltimore branch of the second bank of the United States, James McCullough, he refuses to pay this tax. He says, hey, we are a federally chartered bank, you have no right to tax us. Eventually, it gets appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. And there are two main questions that need to be answered. The first is, does the federal government have the power to charter a national bank? Where is that in the United States Constitution? By the time it got to the Supreme Court, Maryland was arguing that, hey, we don't even think the federal government has the right to charter a bank, we don't see that enumerated in the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And there are two main questions that need to be answered. The first is, does the federal government have the power to charter a national bank? Where is that in the United States Constitution? By the time it got to the Supreme Court, Maryland was arguing that, hey, we don't even think the federal government has the right to charter a bank, we don't see that enumerated in the Constitution. And then if the bank can exist, can a state tax a national bank? The US Supreme Court at this time is headed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who was a federalist. And as we will see, they vote strongly in favor of the federal government."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "By the time it got to the Supreme Court, Maryland was arguing that, hey, we don't even think the federal government has the right to charter a bank, we don't see that enumerated in the Constitution. And then if the bank can exist, can a state tax a national bank? The US Supreme Court at this time is headed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who was a federalist. And as we will see, they vote strongly in favor of the federal government. They decide unanimously that yes, the federal government does have the power to charter a bank, and they say no, a state actually cannot tax it. And so what do they cite in the Constitution to back up that decision? So this right over here is an excerpt of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And as we will see, they vote strongly in favor of the federal government. They decide unanimously that yes, the federal government does have the power to charter a bank, and they say no, a state actually cannot tax it. And so what do they cite in the Constitution to back up that decision? So this right over here is an excerpt of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. We've covered it in other videos when we talk about enumerated powers. And it lists a bunch of powers. Enumerated just means things that are very explicitly defined."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So this right over here is an excerpt of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. We've covered it in other videos when we talk about enumerated powers. And it lists a bunch of powers. Enumerated just means things that are very explicitly defined. They've been listed, they've been enumerated. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations among the several states with the Indian tribes. And it goes on and on and on, but the 18th clause here is really interesting."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Enumerated just means things that are very explicitly defined. They've been listed, they've been enumerated. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations among the several states with the Indian tribes. And it goes on and on and on, but the 18th clause here is really interesting. It's known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, and we cover it in several other videos, but it says that Congress has the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. And so John Marshall, the Chief Justice, in his decision says, look, even though the power to create a national bank, to charter a national bank, even though it isn't enumerated here in Article I, Section 8, this Clause 18, this Necessary and Proper Clause, says that, look, the federal government also can make laws that allow it that are necessary and proper for doing the other things, for example, borrowing money or issuing currency. And so they're saying that, look, this bank is a means to an end."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And it goes on and on and on, but the 18th clause here is really interesting. It's known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, and we cover it in several other videos, but it says that Congress has the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. And so John Marshall, the Chief Justice, in his decision says, look, even though the power to create a national bank, to charter a national bank, even though it isn't enumerated here in Article I, Section 8, this Clause 18, this Necessary and Proper Clause, says that, look, the federal government also can make laws that allow it that are necessary and proper for doing the other things, for example, borrowing money or issuing currency. And so they're saying that, look, this bank is a means to an end. And because it is a means to an enumerated end, they're saying that there's an implied power here. And so the whole notion of implied powers that we talk about in other videos, it really strongly stems from this decision on McCulloch versus Maryland. Now, Maryland argued a narrow reading of this Necessary and Proper Clause."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And so they're saying that, look, this bank is a means to an end. And because it is a means to an enumerated end, they're saying that there's an implied power here. And so the whole notion of implied powers that we talk about in other videos, it really strongly stems from this decision on McCulloch versus Maryland. Now, Maryland argued a narrow reading of this Necessary and Proper Clause. They're like, well, is a bank absolutely necessary? Couldn't you do some of these other things without having a bank? And the Supreme Court said, well, no, no, no, no."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Now, Maryland argued a narrow reading of this Necessary and Proper Clause. They're like, well, is a bank absolutely necessary? Couldn't you do some of these other things without having a bank? And the Supreme Court said, well, no, no, no, no. This isn't to limit the federal government. That this whole section is all about enumerating powers to say what the federal government can do, not what they can't do. So it does not have to be absolutely necessary."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And the Supreme Court said, well, no, no, no, no. This isn't to limit the federal government. That this whole section is all about enumerating powers to say what the federal government can do, not what they can't do. So it does not have to be absolutely necessary. And on the second question of, well, if this bank's going to exist, can the state, where the branch is, can the state tax it? That's where what's known as the Supremacy Clause came into effect. This right over here is an excerpt."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So it does not have to be absolutely necessary. And on the second question of, well, if this bank's going to exist, can the state, where the branch is, can the state tax it? That's where what's known as the Supremacy Clause came into effect. This right over here is an excerpt. Article VI, Clause 2. This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, the federal government, shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. And so the argument that the justices made is, well, you could, if you don't like something, if we allow the states to tax this national bank, well, the power to tax is the power to destroy, that you could tax it so much that it can't even operate."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "This right over here is an excerpt. Article VI, Clause 2. This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, the federal government, shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. And so the argument that the justices made is, well, you could, if you don't like something, if we allow the states to tax this national bank, well, the power to tax is the power to destroy, that you could tax it so much that it can't even operate. But this is saying that the authority of the federal government of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. So a state can't get in the way of the federal government. And to hear it in John Marshall's own words, he wrote a very long decision about McCulloch versus Maryland but here's just a few excerpts that speak to each of these points."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And so the argument that the justices made is, well, you could, if you don't like something, if we allow the states to tax this national bank, well, the power to tax is the power to destroy, that you could tax it so much that it can't even operate. But this is saying that the authority of the federal government of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. So a state can't get in the way of the federal government. And to hear it in John Marshall's own words, he wrote a very long decision about McCulloch versus Maryland but here's just a few excerpts that speak to each of these points. So first of all, implied powers. Let the end be legitimate. Let it be within the scope of the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "And to hear it in John Marshall's own words, he wrote a very long decision about McCulloch versus Maryland but here's just a few excerpts that speak to each of these points. So first of all, implied powers. Let the end be legitimate. Let it be within the scope of the Constitution. And all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution are constitutional. This is a big deal. He's saying, look, if the end is legitimate and if the means is not prohibited, so nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government can't start a national bank, so it's not prohibited, and if the end is to do some of the enumerated powers that are legitimate, then it is constitutional."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "Let it be within the scope of the Constitution. And all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution are constitutional. This is a big deal. He's saying, look, if the end is legitimate and if the means is not prohibited, so nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government can't start a national bank, so it's not prohibited, and if the end is to do some of the enumerated powers that are legitimate, then it is constitutional. So this is really a strong wording around implied powers and using the necessary and proper clause as the backing for it. And in terms of supremacy, it is of the very essence of supremacy to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments as to accept its own operations from their influence. So it's saying, hey, we're not gonna allow subordinate governments, the states, to get in the way."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "He's saying, look, if the end is legitimate and if the means is not prohibited, so nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government can't start a national bank, so it's not prohibited, and if the end is to do some of the enumerated powers that are legitimate, then it is constitutional. So this is really a strong wording around implied powers and using the necessary and proper clause as the backing for it. And in terms of supremacy, it is of the very essence of supremacy to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments as to accept its own operations from their influence. So it's saying, hey, we're not gonna allow subordinate governments, the states, to get in the way. That's the essence of the supremacy clause. This effect need not be stated in terms. It is so involved in the Declaration of Supremacy, so necessarily implied in it, that the expression of it could not make it more certain."}, {"video_title": "McCulloch v. Maryland   Foundations of American democracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy (2).mp3", "Sentence": "So it's saying, hey, we're not gonna allow subordinate governments, the states, to get in the way. That's the essence of the supremacy clause. This effect need not be stated in terms. It is so involved in the Declaration of Supremacy, so necessarily implied in it, that the expression of it could not make it more certain. So once again, John Marshall clearly saying the supremacy clause, in order for it to make any sense, the subordinate governments, the states, should not be able to interfere with the operations of the federal government. If their ends are legitimate, it's constitutional, and the states cannot get in the way. In the example of McCullough versus Maryland, by taxing."}, {"video_title": "The presidential incumbency advantage   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is the idea that the person who is already in power, the incumbent, has an advantage in elections. And in particular, we're going to focus on presidential elections, although this idea is pretty common across different offices. Now it turns out that if you go back over roughly the last 100 years, in presidential elections that had an incumbent, that had a sitting president running for a second term, or maybe a third or a fourth term in the case of FDR, you have more than 80% of the time it goes to the incumbent. And this right over here is a picture of the presidential debates from C-SPAN, and this is in 2012 between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and President Obama, of course, was the incumbent, and he went on to win. And once again, not unusual. This happened 80% of the time. The last time that a challenger was able to unseat an incumbent was in 1992, when you have President Clinton was able to beat President George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush's father, George H. W. Bush."}, {"video_title": "The presidential incumbency advantage   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this right over here is a picture of the presidential debates from C-SPAN, and this is in 2012 between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and President Obama, of course, was the incumbent, and he went on to win. And once again, not unusual. This happened 80% of the time. The last time that a challenger was able to unseat an incumbent was in 1992, when you have President Clinton was able to beat President George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush's father, George H. W. Bush. And the time before, and this is 26 years ago, 26 years before the time of the making of this video, and to go even before that, the last time before 1992 would have been 1980 when Reagan is able to beat Carter. So this is a very unusual thing for a challenger to be able to beat an incumbent. Now one thing I would like you to do is pause this video."}, {"video_title": "The presidential incumbency advantage   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The last time that a challenger was able to unseat an incumbent was in 1992, when you have President Clinton was able to beat President George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush's father, George H. W. Bush. And the time before, and this is 26 years ago, 26 years before the time of the making of this video, and to go even before that, the last time before 1992 would have been 1980 when Reagan is able to beat Carter. So this is a very unusual thing for a challenger to be able to beat an incumbent. Now one thing I would like you to do is pause this video. Think about why incumbents might have such an advantage. Okay, so there's many scholarly papers written about the idea of the incumbent advantage, both at the presidential level and at other levels, but we can come up with some ideas as to why the incumbent has the advantage. One is people already imagine that individual as president because they are the president."}, {"video_title": "The presidential incumbency advantage   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now one thing I would like you to do is pause this video. Think about why incumbents might have such an advantage. Okay, so there's many scholarly papers written about the idea of the incumbent advantage, both at the presidential level and at other levels, but we can come up with some ideas as to why the incumbent has the advantage. One is people already imagine that individual as president because they are the president. On top of that, because they are already president, they've had many years of being in the national spotlight, and even during the presidential campaign, they are still the president. And so they have that bully pulpit that President Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, talked about, bully pulpit, where they can get people's attention when they want to, even though the challenger might be well-funded and the press is definitely going to pay attention to the challenger and give them a lot of voice, because the president is the president, they have the State of the Union Address, they can call special sessions of Congress, they have their regular press briefings, and so they have a much larger voice even compared to a very prominent challenger. On top of that, there might be some notion of experience, and this idea of experience can go in many directions."}, {"video_title": "The presidential incumbency advantage   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One is people already imagine that individual as president because they are the president. On top of that, because they are already president, they've had many years of being in the national spotlight, and even during the presidential campaign, they are still the president. And so they have that bully pulpit that President Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, talked about, bully pulpit, where they can get people's attention when they want to, even though the challenger might be well-funded and the press is definitely going to pay attention to the challenger and give them a lot of voice, because the president is the president, they have the State of the Union Address, they can call special sessions of Congress, they have their regular press briefings, and so they have a much larger voice even compared to a very prominent challenger. On top of that, there might be some notion of experience, and this idea of experience can go in many directions. No matter which candidate has more life experience, which one is older, one could argue that no one has ever really been the president unless they are the president. And so someone who has been in that job for four years has been able to build some experiences that maybe they'll be able to build on for their second term while the other person might have to, no matter what they've done in the rest of their life, being the president is a fairly new experience. The other idea is that they are experienced campaigners, that they have already run a successful presidential campaign, and this is their second time around, which could help winning that campaign."}, {"video_title": "The presidential incumbency advantage   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "On top of that, there might be some notion of experience, and this idea of experience can go in many directions. No matter which candidate has more life experience, which one is older, one could argue that no one has ever really been the president unless they are the president. And so someone who has been in that job for four years has been able to build some experiences that maybe they'll be able to build on for their second term while the other person might have to, no matter what they've done in the rest of their life, being the president is a fairly new experience. The other idea is that they are experienced campaigners, that they have already run a successful presidential campaign, and this is their second time around, which could help winning that campaign. Another idea that might help an incumbent, and once again, this is me thinking about it, I encourage you to think about it and see if you buy these or can come up with others, is maybe there's a sense of patriotism, that people are used to thinking of the incumbent as their president for the last several years, and so they feel some sense of loyalty to them. This could even be supercharged if maybe it's in wartime or if the country is facing some type of foreign policy crisis, that they wanna stand behind the person during that time of crisis. They don't wanna change who's in charge in the middle of a war or something like that."}, {"video_title": "The presidential incumbency advantage   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The other idea is that they are experienced campaigners, that they have already run a successful presidential campaign, and this is their second time around, which could help winning that campaign. Another idea that might help an incumbent, and once again, this is me thinking about it, I encourage you to think about it and see if you buy these or can come up with others, is maybe there's a sense of patriotism, that people are used to thinking of the incumbent as their president for the last several years, and so they feel some sense of loyalty to them. This could even be supercharged if maybe it's in wartime or if the country is facing some type of foreign policy crisis, that they wanna stand behind the person during that time of crisis. They don't wanna change who's in charge in the middle of a war or something like that. So I will leave you there. These are just some ideas why we see this phenomenon of an incumbent advantage. I encourage you to think about why this is happening."}, {"video_title": "Senate checks on presidential appointments   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They can appoint ambassadors, ambassadors, and they can appoint judges. We could talk about federal judges generally, but perhaps most importantly, they can appoint members of the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, and that is a very influential appointment because these are positions that will last for a lifetime. But this power is not unchecked. These appointments need to be confirmed by the United States Senate, and many times, the confirmation process goes relatively smoothly, but sometimes, especially when we're talking about lifetime judicial appointments, especially to the United States Supreme Court, things can get quite heated, and perhaps the best example of that is something that has happened quite recently relative to the making of this video. 2016 was an election year. In February of 2016, you have Associate Justice Scalia passes away. Now, this is a really, really big deal because as we talked about, Supreme Court appointments are for life, and so in theory, this is now a time where the president would make a nomination."}, {"video_title": "Senate checks on presidential appointments   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These appointments need to be confirmed by the United States Senate, and many times, the confirmation process goes relatively smoothly, but sometimes, especially when we're talking about lifetime judicial appointments, especially to the United States Supreme Court, things can get quite heated, and perhaps the best example of that is something that has happened quite recently relative to the making of this video. 2016 was an election year. In February of 2016, you have Associate Justice Scalia passes away. Now, this is a really, really big deal because as we talked about, Supreme Court appointments are for life, and so in theory, this is now a time where the president would make a nomination. Now, the president does make a nomination. President Barack Obama in March of 2016 nominates Merrick Garland. Now, the Republicans are not happy, and Republicans control both houses of Congress, but most important for this video, they control the Senate, and the reason why they are not happy is Justice Scalia was considered to be the conservative backbone of the United States Supreme Court, and if all of a sudden he is replaced with someone who leans to the left, who leans liberal, that could change the tone, that could change the sentiment of the United States Supreme Court for a generation or maybe even generations to come, so they invoke their power in the Senate, which is controlled by Mitch McConnell, who's the Senate majority leader."}, {"video_title": "Senate checks on presidential appointments   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, this is a really, really big deal because as we talked about, Supreme Court appointments are for life, and so in theory, this is now a time where the president would make a nomination. Now, the president does make a nomination. President Barack Obama in March of 2016 nominates Merrick Garland. Now, the Republicans are not happy, and Republicans control both houses of Congress, but most important for this video, they control the Senate, and the reason why they are not happy is Justice Scalia was considered to be the conservative backbone of the United States Supreme Court, and if all of a sudden he is replaced with someone who leans to the left, who leans liberal, that could change the tone, that could change the sentiment of the United States Supreme Court for a generation or maybe even generations to come, so they invoke their power in the Senate, which is controlled by Mitch McConnell, who's the Senate majority leader. He decides to take a hard stance, and even though President Obama had nominated Merrick Garland, the Republicans make the argument that, hey, this is a presidential election year. We're just gonna wait things out, so they refuse to have hearings on Merrick Garland, much less vote on his nomination, and so they essentially just wait out the clock through the presidential election, and then at the presidential election, you have a Republican gets elected, Donald Trump, and so then they are able to help get Donald Trump's appointment for that seat approved, and even that is a little bit of a interesting political story, so this is a classic example of a congressional check on a presidential power, and this one in particular gets people on both sides of the aisle a little bit worked up. Democrats would say, wow, you did not consider an appointment by a president, and you waited out many, many, many months just to get an outcome you wanted, while Republicans might say, wow, Mitch McConnell was really principled here, and he really used the Senate's constitutional power to place an appropriate check on the president."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In many videos we have talked about how the judicial branch, one of its main powers, is to be a check on the executive and legislative branch, that it can exercise judicial review over them. It can say that a legislative action, that a law, that a statute is unconstitutional. It can say that an executive action, say a rule or regulation or an executive order, is unconstitutional. But as it's doing that, as it's exercising its judicial review, how does it go about doing that? And this term judicial activism was first introduced by Arthur Schlesinger, who we've talked about in other videos, and it's meant to imply a judiciary that is not strictly just ruling based on maybe what the Constitution says, but also their own personal ideas. So personal, personal views. It sometimes has an implication that the judges are overreaching in some way."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But as it's doing that, as it's exercising its judicial review, how does it go about doing that? And this term judicial activism was first introduced by Arthur Schlesinger, who we've talked about in other videos, and it's meant to imply a judiciary that is not strictly just ruling based on maybe what the Constitution says, but also their own personal ideas. So personal, personal views. It sometimes has an implication that the judges are overreaching in some way. Some people might say it, and this would be a little bit of a negative, legislating from the bench. Legislating, legislating from the bench. And you'll often hear that, hey, that judge or that court is legislating from the bench, from the people who don't like their ruling."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It sometimes has an implication that the judges are overreaching in some way. Some people might say it, and this would be a little bit of a negative, legislating from the bench. Legislating, legislating from the bench. And you'll often hear that, hey, that judge or that court is legislating from the bench, from the people who don't like their ruling. They're saying, hey, they're not strictly looking at the law. They're trying to make their own laws through their rulings. Now, some would say that it's necessary for the judicial to do this because they are interpreting the Constitution in the world as it is, and the world that we are in changes over time."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you'll often hear that, hey, that judge or that court is legislating from the bench, from the people who don't like their ruling. They're saying, hey, they're not strictly looking at the law. They're trying to make their own laws through their rulings. Now, some would say that it's necessary for the judicial to do this because they are interpreting the Constitution in the world as it is, and the world that we are in changes over time. So it is really a form of positive activism, that they are defending liberties, that they're defending rights, especially in the social context that we're in. I'll leave you to decide whether you think this is a good idea or not. Now, judicial restraint is the opposite of it."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, some would say that it's necessary for the judicial to do this because they are interpreting the Constitution in the world as it is, and the world that we are in changes over time. So it is really a form of positive activism, that they are defending liberties, that they're defending rights, especially in the social context that we're in. I'll leave you to decide whether you think this is a good idea or not. Now, judicial restraint is the opposite of it. This is a situation where the judges or the courts limit their power. So limit, limit their own power, their own power, where they say, hey, look, our job is to just be the umpire, the referee. Our job is not to make new rules."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, judicial restraint is the opposite of it. This is a situation where the judges or the courts limit their power. So limit, limit their own power, their own power, where they say, hey, look, our job is to just be the umpire, the referee. Our job is not to make new rules. And so we are just going to strictly think about whether something is constitutional or whether it is not. And one of the most seminal cases on judicial activism versus judicial restraint happened in the early 1960s, and that is the case of Baker versus Carr. And so what happens is, is that Baker is a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Our job is not to make new rules. And so we are just going to strictly think about whether something is constitutional or whether it is not. And one of the most seminal cases on judicial activism versus judicial restraint happened in the early 1960s, and that is the case of Baker versus Carr. And so what happens is, is that Baker is a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee. He was actually the former mayor of a town outside of Memphis, which is in this area right over here. And he says that, look, the state is not reapportioning its legislative districts the way it should be, that in general, every 10 years, there is a census, and based on that, we have an understanding of where the population sits, and then the state should be reapportioning districts based on population. But what Baker argued is, is that the state of Tennessee actually did not redistrict since 1901, after the census of 1900, and it was now the early 1960s."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so what happens is, is that Baker is a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee. He was actually the former mayor of a town outside of Memphis, which is in this area right over here. And he says that, look, the state is not reapportioning its legislative districts the way it should be, that in general, every 10 years, there is a census, and based on that, we have an understanding of where the population sits, and then the state should be reapportioning districts based on population. But what Baker argued is, is that the state of Tennessee actually did not redistrict since 1901, after the census of 1900, and it was now the early 1960s. And he says because of that, and he invoked the 14th Amendment, you weren't getting equal protection, that people in his county that had gotten increasingly urban and had gotten increasingly dense over the course of those 60 years, that they were getting the same representation despite having a larger population than some of the rural areas where they have a lower population and had the same number of representatives. And so he takes this case against the Secretary of State of Tennessee at the time, who was Carr, and it eventually gets to the Supreme Court. And the essential question in Baker versus Carr is whether the courts even have jurisdiction over legislative districting, because the districting was a power of the state legislature in Tennessee."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what Baker argued is, is that the state of Tennessee actually did not redistrict since 1901, after the census of 1900, and it was now the early 1960s. And he says because of that, and he invoked the 14th Amendment, you weren't getting equal protection, that people in his county that had gotten increasingly urban and had gotten increasingly dense over the course of those 60 years, that they were getting the same representation despite having a larger population than some of the rural areas where they have a lower population and had the same number of representatives. And so he takes this case against the Secretary of State of Tennessee at the time, who was Carr, and it eventually gets to the Supreme Court. And the essential question in Baker versus Carr is whether the courts even have jurisdiction over legislative districting, because the districting was a power of the state legislature in Tennessee. And in this case, the United States Supreme Court actually did vote in favor of Baker. So not only did they say that Baker was right in asking for this redistricting, it had huge implications in saying that yes, courts like the United States Supreme Court do have jurisdiction over something that was officially a legislative duty, telling the legislative that look, you've got to do this, because by not doing this action, by exercising your discretion there, you might not be allowing everyone to have equal protection. They have argued, including the two dissenters to the opinion, that this was a form of judicial activism."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the essential question in Baker versus Carr is whether the courts even have jurisdiction over legislative districting, because the districting was a power of the state legislature in Tennessee. And in this case, the United States Supreme Court actually did vote in favor of Baker. So not only did they say that Baker was right in asking for this redistricting, it had huge implications in saying that yes, courts like the United States Supreme Court do have jurisdiction over something that was officially a legislative duty, telling the legislative that look, you've got to do this, because by not doing this action, by exercising your discretion there, you might not be allowing everyone to have equal protection. They have argued, including the two dissenters to the opinion, that this was a form of judicial activism. It increased the power of the judiciary. And to appreciate the view of the United States Supreme Court that they do have jurisdiction over legislative districting, here is part of Associate Justice Douglas' concurring opinion. \"'Where the performance of a duty \"'is left to the discretion and good judgment \"'of an executive officer, \"'the judiciary will not compel \"'the exercise of his discretion one way or the other, \"'for to do so would be to take over the office.'\""}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They have argued, including the two dissenters to the opinion, that this was a form of judicial activism. It increased the power of the judiciary. And to appreciate the view of the United States Supreme Court that they do have jurisdiction over legislative districting, here is part of Associate Justice Douglas' concurring opinion. \"'Where the performance of a duty \"'is left to the discretion and good judgment \"'of an executive officer, \"'the judiciary will not compel \"'the exercise of his discretion one way or the other, \"'for to do so would be to take over the office.'\" So he's saying look, when it is someone's job, where there's an executive officer to do this duty, then the courts should not have jurisdiction there. But then he goes on to write, \"'There is no doubt that the federal courts \"'have jurisdiction of controversies \"'concerning voting rights. \"'The Civil Rights Act gives them authority \"'to redress the deprivation, \"'under color of any state law, \"'of any right, privilege, or immunity \"'secured by the Constitution of the United States, \"'or by any act of Congress \"'providing for equal rights of citizens.'\""}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "\"'Where the performance of a duty \"'is left to the discretion and good judgment \"'of an executive officer, \"'the judiciary will not compel \"'the exercise of his discretion one way or the other, \"'for to do so would be to take over the office.'\" So he's saying look, when it is someone's job, where there's an executive officer to do this duty, then the courts should not have jurisdiction there. But then he goes on to write, \"'There is no doubt that the federal courts \"'have jurisdiction of controversies \"'concerning voting rights. \"'The Civil Rights Act gives them authority \"'to redress the deprivation, \"'under color of any state law, \"'of any right, privilege, or immunity \"'secured by the Constitution of the United States, \"'or by any act of Congress \"'providing for equal rights of citizens.'\" Really saying that look, if the court can see that some right is being violated, some right that's described in any under the state law, under the United States Constitution, then the courts do have jurisdiction. \"'The right to vote in both federal and state elections \"'was protected by the judiciary \"'long before that right received \"'the explicit protection it is now accorded.'\" So he's saying look, even before the Civil Rights Act, even before the 14th Amendment, that this was something that was part of the charter of the judiciary, part of the federal court system."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "\"'The Civil Rights Act gives them authority \"'to redress the deprivation, \"'under color of any state law, \"'of any right, privilege, or immunity \"'secured by the Constitution of the United States, \"'or by any act of Congress \"'providing for equal rights of citizens.'\" Really saying that look, if the court can see that some right is being violated, some right that's described in any under the state law, under the United States Constitution, then the courts do have jurisdiction. \"'The right to vote in both federal and state elections \"'was protected by the judiciary \"'long before that right received \"'the explicit protection it is now accorded.'\" So he's saying look, even before the Civil Rights Act, even before the 14th Amendment, that this was something that was part of the charter of the judiciary, part of the federal court system. And so it does lean in favor of judicial activism. Because you can imagine courts, and they have cited Baker versus Carr since the 1960s repeatedly, as reasons saying hey look, we're trying to protect people's rights, and people have a right to do X, Y, or Z, even if it hasn't been explicitly legislated. Now there were two dissenters."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So he's saying look, even before the Civil Rights Act, even before the 14th Amendment, that this was something that was part of the charter of the judiciary, part of the federal court system. And so it does lean in favor of judicial activism. Because you can imagine courts, and they have cited Baker versus Carr since the 1960s repeatedly, as reasons saying hey look, we're trying to protect people's rights, and people have a right to do X, Y, or Z, even if it hasn't been explicitly legislated. Now there were two dissenters. And this is what the dissenters wrote. \"'The court's authority \"'possessed neither of the purse nor the sword.'\" So here the purse, that's the legislative branch that can think about budgets."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now there were two dissenters. And this is what the dissenters wrote. \"'The court's authority \"'possessed neither of the purse nor the sword.'\" So here the purse, that's the legislative branch that can think about budgets. Or the sword, that's the executive branch, the president, the commander in chief. \"'Ultimately rests on sustained public confidence \"'in its moral sanction.'\" Let me underline that."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So here the purse, that's the legislative branch that can think about budgets. Or the sword, that's the executive branch, the president, the commander in chief. \"'Ultimately rests on sustained public confidence \"'in its moral sanction.'\" Let me underline that. \"'On sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. \"'Such feeling must be nourished \"'by the court's complete detachment \"'in fact and in appearance from political entanglements \"'and by abstention from injecting itself \"'into the clash of political forces \"'in political settlements.'\" So here, Associate Justice Frankfurter, in his dissenting opinion, is saying look, we should stay out of this."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let me underline that. \"'On sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. \"'Such feeling must be nourished \"'by the court's complete detachment \"'in fact and in appearance from political entanglements \"'and by abstention from injecting itself \"'into the clash of political forces \"'in political settlements.'\" So here, Associate Justice Frankfurter, in his dissenting opinion, is saying look, we should stay out of this. That not only is it not our part to rule here, to say that hey look, the legislative needs to do this redistricting again, he's saying that it actually undermines the credibility of the court, that the credibility ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. And that by ruling in favor of Baker, the court was overstepping these bounds. That people would say hey, you're trying to legislate from the bench."}, {"video_title": "Judicial activism and judicial restraint   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So here, Associate Justice Frankfurter, in his dissenting opinion, is saying look, we should stay out of this. That not only is it not our part to rule here, to say that hey look, the legislative needs to do this redistricting again, he's saying that it actually undermines the credibility of the court, that the credibility ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. And that by ruling in favor of Baker, the court was overstepping these bounds. That people would say hey, you're trying to legislate from the bench. You're trying to get involved in the political even though the court is supposed to stay above the fray of the political. Or another way to think about this is that Associate Justice Frankfurter subscribed to the idea of judicial restraint and felt that the other six justices that were voting in favor of Baker were practicing to some degree judicial activism. They were getting into the territory of the other branches of government."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's fiscal policy, which we will focus mainly on in this video, which is the idea of how much does the government tax and how much does the government spend. And this is fundamentally in control of the US Congress. Then you also have monetary policy. And these are ideas around interest rates and the money supply in service of keeping the economy strong without having inflation run amok. And this is controlled in the United States by the US Federal Reserve System. Now, if you were to put the various ideologies on a spectrum it might look something like this. And I put liberal ideology on the left because it's often associated with a left-leaning ideology."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And these are ideas around interest rates and the money supply in service of keeping the economy strong without having inflation run amok. And this is controlled in the United States by the US Federal Reserve System. Now, if you were to put the various ideologies on a spectrum it might look something like this. And I put liberal ideology on the left because it's often associated with a left-leaning ideology. And I put conservatives on the right because it's often described as a right-leaning ideology. Libertarians are interesting because if we're talking about economics, they have a lot more in common with conservatives than they do with liberals. But if we were talking about social issues, it would be the other way around."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And I put liberal ideology on the left because it's often associated with a left-leaning ideology. And I put conservatives on the right because it's often described as a right-leaning ideology. Libertarians are interesting because if we're talking about economics, they have a lot more in common with conservatives than they do with liberals. But if we were talking about social issues, it would be the other way around. Libertarians would have a lot more in common with liberals than conservatives on social issues. In general, libertarians want less government intervention on either dimension, on economics or social issues. But now let's focus on the entire spectrum."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But if we were talking about social issues, it would be the other way around. Libertarians would have a lot more in common with liberals than conservatives on social issues. In general, libertarians want less government intervention on either dimension, on economics or social issues. But now let's focus on the entire spectrum. So if we were to think about liberals, what's your sense of how a liberal might think about, say, fiscal policy, taxation, and government spending? Generally speaking, liberals favor a larger government. And this larger government happens through higher taxes, higher taxes, and higher government spending and more government programs, higher spending."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But now let's focus on the entire spectrum. So if we were to think about liberals, what's your sense of how a liberal might think about, say, fiscal policy, taxation, and government spending? Generally speaking, liberals favor a larger government. And this larger government happens through higher taxes, higher taxes, and higher government spending and more government programs, higher spending. And the reason why they tend to favor a larger government is they will invoke ideas of a safety net that in a wealthy society, everyone should be provided for on some level. They might invoke ideas of fairness. They also believe that a larger government is out there to protect the citizenry from being taken advantage of."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this larger government happens through higher taxes, higher taxes, and higher government spending and more government programs, higher spending. And the reason why they tend to favor a larger government is they will invoke ideas of a safety net that in a wealthy society, everyone should be provided for on some level. They might invoke ideas of fairness. They also believe that a larger government is out there to protect the citizenry from being taken advantage of. And so they'll also favor more regulation. Now, conservatives would take the opposite stance. They tend to favor smaller government, smaller government."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They also believe that a larger government is out there to protect the citizenry from being taken advantage of. And so they'll also favor more regulation. Now, conservatives would take the opposite stance. They tend to favor smaller government, smaller government. And it would be in the form of lower taxes, lower taxes, lower spending, lower spending, and less government regulation, less regulation. And they'll make the argument that the less that the government gets in the way, the more that the economy can actually thrive, the more that business can do well, the more competitive our country will be, in which case everyone will be better off. And so they're often associated as being pro-business, but many conservatives would argue that by being pro-business it's actually helping more individuals."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They tend to favor smaller government, smaller government. And it would be in the form of lower taxes, lower taxes, lower spending, lower spending, and less government regulation, less regulation. And they'll make the argument that the less that the government gets in the way, the more that the economy can actually thrive, the more that business can do well, the more competitive our country will be, in which case everyone will be better off. And so they're often associated as being pro-business, but many conservatives would argue that by being pro-business it's actually helping more individuals. Now, an idea that often gets associated with liberals is one of Keynesian economics. Now, John Maynard Keynes was an early 20th century economist who argued that a government could use fiscal policy in order to stimulate the economy. So Keynes argued that during recessions, the government could even run deficits in order to stimulate the economy, that even deficits were not bad, by lowering taxes, because lower taxes would put more money in individuals' and businesses' pockets, and increasing spending, so higher government spending, higher government spending."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so they're often associated as being pro-business, but many conservatives would argue that by being pro-business it's actually helping more individuals. Now, an idea that often gets associated with liberals is one of Keynesian economics. Now, John Maynard Keynes was an early 20th century economist who argued that a government could use fiscal policy in order to stimulate the economy. So Keynes argued that during recessions, the government could even run deficits in order to stimulate the economy, that even deficits were not bad, by lowering taxes, because lower taxes would put more money in individuals' and businesses' pockets, and increasing spending, so higher government spending, higher government spending. Now, although Keynes is most associated with a liberal ideology, especially because it was practiced during the Depression by FDR, some would argue that it might have helped come out of the Depression, it turns out that most mainstream liberals and conservatives do practice some form of Keynesian economics. Liberals tend to stress the higher government spending. If we're in a recession, the government should spend more to stimulate the economy, to put more money in folks' pockets, so that there's more consumer spending which could drive the economy."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So Keynes argued that during recessions, the government could even run deficits in order to stimulate the economy, that even deficits were not bad, by lowering taxes, because lower taxes would put more money in individuals' and businesses' pockets, and increasing spending, so higher government spending, higher government spending. Now, although Keynes is most associated with a liberal ideology, especially because it was practiced during the Depression by FDR, some would argue that it might have helped come out of the Depression, it turns out that most mainstream liberals and conservatives do practice some form of Keynesian economics. Liberals tend to stress the higher government spending. If we're in a recession, the government should spend more to stimulate the economy, to put more money in folks' pockets, so that there's more consumer spending which could drive the economy. Conservatives try to favor the lower taxes. You will see conservative government officials say, hey, we want to lower taxes to stimulate the economy. Fundamentally, that is a Keynesian point of view, therefore, we're focusing on the lower taxes angle of it."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If we're in a recession, the government should spend more to stimulate the economy, to put more money in folks' pockets, so that there's more consumer spending which could drive the economy. Conservatives try to favor the lower taxes. You will see conservative government officials say, hey, we want to lower taxes to stimulate the economy. Fundamentally, that is a Keynesian point of view, therefore, we're focusing on the lower taxes angle of it. In either case, if your spending is higher than your taxes, both sides would run a deficit in order to stimulate the economy. Sometimes the conservatives are associated with the idea of supply-side economics. And this is the idea, and this goes back to being pro-business and even lower taxes, that hey, if more people have more money in their pockets, especially those who invest or those who are starting businesses, or businesses themselves, that they can then expand their capacity."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Fundamentally, that is a Keynesian point of view, therefore, we're focusing on the lower taxes angle of it. In either case, if your spending is higher than your taxes, both sides would run a deficit in order to stimulate the economy. Sometimes the conservatives are associated with the idea of supply-side economics. And this is the idea, and this goes back to being pro-business and even lower taxes, that hey, if more people have more money in their pockets, especially those who invest or those who are starting businesses, or businesses themselves, that they can then expand their capacity. They could go and hire more people, and that this would be good for everyone. Now, what about libertarians? Well, on economic policy, you could view them as even more conservative than conservatives."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is the idea, and this goes back to being pro-business and even lower taxes, that hey, if more people have more money in their pockets, especially those who invest or those who are starting businesses, or businesses themselves, that they can then expand their capacity. They could go and hire more people, and that this would be good for everyone. Now, what about libertarians? Well, on economic policy, you could view them as even more conservative than conservatives. They would favor the smallest possible government. Smallest, smallest possible, possible government. Many libertarians would argue that the government should only be there to protect property rights, to have a common self-defense, to have some basic public safety, and outside of that, the government should get out of the way and people would be best off."}, {"video_title": "Political ideology and economics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, on economic policy, you could view them as even more conservative than conservatives. They would favor the smallest possible government. Smallest, smallest possible, possible government. Many libertarians would argue that the government should only be there to protect property rights, to have a common self-defense, to have some basic public safety, and outside of that, the government should get out of the way and people would be best off. And many libertarians would even argue that the whole idea of a federal reserve system that's actively controlling monetary policy is a bad idea. So I'll leave you there. This gives you a big picture of how political ideology connects to folks' views on economics."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So people know what's going on in the government and so that the government knows the preferences of the people. And examples of linkage institutions, let me just draw an arrow here, examples of linkage institutions might be elections, where the people are able to communicate their preferences, parties, where that could obviously influence elections but also influence policies. You have various interest groups. But what we're gonna focus on in this video is the media. Now there's one pure view of the media and sometimes it's called the fourth estate, where it has a central role in government, where the goal is to hold the government accountable, to inform the people, to have this pure, objective view of what is going on with the government and bring it to the people and then help the people hold the government accountable and also help the government know objectively what the people are thinking. And that is an ideal that many in the media may strive for. But you have to think about what are the incentives, what makes the media relevant and how do they exist?"}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But what we're gonna focus on in this video is the media. Now there's one pure view of the media and sometimes it's called the fourth estate, where it has a central role in government, where the goal is to hold the government accountable, to inform the people, to have this pure, objective view of what is going on with the government and bring it to the people and then help the people hold the government accountable and also help the government know objectively what the people are thinking. And that is an ideal that many in the media may strive for. But you have to think about what are the incentives, what makes the media relevant and how do they exist? Most media outlets are for-profit organizations. And so let me make a few of these. Let's say that we have this one right over here."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But you have to think about what are the incentives, what makes the media relevant and how do they exist? Most media outlets are for-profit organizations. And so let me make a few of these. Let's say that we have this one right over here. I'll call this Media Outlet One. Let me do this one right over here. Let's call this Media Outlet Two."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's say that we have this one right over here. I'll call this Media Outlet One. Let me do this one right over here. Let's call this Media Outlet Two. As for-profit organizations, they need to get revenue. They need so they can get their profit somehow. And for most of them, it comes through ad revenue."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's call this Media Outlet Two. As for-profit organizations, they need to get revenue. They need so they can get their profit somehow. And for most of them, it comes through ad revenue. So those ad dollars that are shown during the news or during a TV show. And so you might guess that, hey, if I need to get ad revenue, advertisers aren't going to wanna show ads on a station that's not getting any viewership. So they're going to say, hey, how do we get maximum viewership?"}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And for most of them, it comes through ad revenue. So those ad dollars that are shown during the news or during a TV show. And so you might guess that, hey, if I need to get ad revenue, advertisers aren't going to wanna show ads on a station that's not getting any viewership. So they're going to say, hey, how do we get maximum viewership? One argument might be, hey, we wanna be the most objective, high-quality news source. And that is a strategy that could be approached. Or they could say, hey, maybe I could cater to certain belief systems, to maybe left-leaning folks or right-leaning folks."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they're going to say, hey, how do we get maximum viewership? One argument might be, hey, we wanna be the most objective, high-quality news source. And that is a strategy that could be approached. Or they could say, hey, maybe I could cater to certain belief systems, to maybe left-leaning folks or right-leaning folks. If you were to say that this is the distribution of people in our population right over here, where people on this side lean left, and then people on the right side right over here lean to the right, and these are people in between, there absolutely is a strategy where maybe if you are this media outlet, you say, hey, I wanna be centrist, maybe give equal time, equal views to either side, and maybe I get that viewership. But you could also have a strategy as, well, what if I wanna capture all of these folks? Well, what they might wanna hear is something that's more critical of the right, that reinforces their left beliefs."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or they could say, hey, maybe I could cater to certain belief systems, to maybe left-leaning folks or right-leaning folks. If you were to say that this is the distribution of people in our population right over here, where people on this side lean left, and then people on the right side right over here lean to the right, and these are people in between, there absolutely is a strategy where maybe if you are this media outlet, you say, hey, I wanna be centrist, maybe give equal time, equal views to either side, and maybe I get that viewership. But you could also have a strategy as, well, what if I wanna capture all of these folks? Well, what they might wanna hear is something that's more critical of the right, that reinforces their left beliefs. And so I could cater to that. Similarly, you might have something on the right, saying I could capture all of this audience here by helping, to some degree, telling them what they want to hear, and maybe in some level, reinforcing their beliefs. But by doing that, I get a large audience, and I'm able to sell a lot of ads."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, what they might wanna hear is something that's more critical of the right, that reinforces their left beliefs. And so I could cater to that. Similarly, you might have something on the right, saying I could capture all of this audience here by helping, to some degree, telling them what they want to hear, and maybe in some level, reinforcing their beliefs. But by doing that, I get a large audience, and I'm able to sell a lot of ads. It's an interesting debate whether it is good or bad that you have these media outlets that might cater to certain ideologies, but even if they are, they're still performing the role on some level as a linkage institution. Because these folks are trying to cater and understand what their viewership wants, that is a signal to the government that, okay, at least the demographic that watches Media Station 1, this is the kind of stuff they're thinking about, and the demographic that watches Media Station 2, these are the things that they are thinking about. So it does communicate in some way to government."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But by doing that, I get a large audience, and I'm able to sell a lot of ads. It's an interesting debate whether it is good or bad that you have these media outlets that might cater to certain ideologies, but even if they are, they're still performing the role on some level as a linkage institution. Because these folks are trying to cater and understand what their viewership wants, that is a signal to the government that, okay, at least the demographic that watches Media Station 1, this is the kind of stuff they're thinking about, and the demographic that watches Media Station 2, these are the things that they are thinking about. So it does communicate in some way to government. But you can imagine, almost every media outlet is trying to market that they are that ideal objective. And here's an example of that, where a media outlet is actually reporting on how non-objective other media outlets are, in their opinion, or perhaps in the opinion of their viewers. Tonight, a fair and balanced examination of the mainstream media's bias with three glaring new examples."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it does communicate in some way to government. But you can imagine, almost every media outlet is trying to market that they are that ideal objective. And here's an example of that, where a media outlet is actually reporting on how non-objective other media outlets are, in their opinion, or perhaps in the opinion of their viewers. Tonight, a fair and balanced examination of the mainstream media's bias with three glaring new examples. First up, Donald Trump is firing back at the Washington Post after learning the papers devoted an army of 20 staffers to dig up dirt on every nook and cranny of his life. Now another dimension to appreciate how the media, as a linkage institution, might influence government, or frankly, might influence other linkage institutions, like elections, is how they report on things. Remember, they're trying to get viewership because the viewership is what makes the advertisers wanna advertise on their media outlets."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Tonight, a fair and balanced examination of the mainstream media's bias with three glaring new examples. First up, Donald Trump is firing back at the Washington Post after learning the papers devoted an army of 20 staffers to dig up dirt on every nook and cranny of his life. Now another dimension to appreciate how the media, as a linkage institution, might influence government, or frankly, might influence other linkage institutions, like elections, is how they report on things. Remember, they're trying to get viewership because the viewership is what makes the advertisers wanna advertise on their media outlets. And so to get viewership, one strategy is to make things really exciting, make it look like a sports competition, make it look like a horse race. And you see this, especially during elections, that oftentimes, the focus may not even be on the substance, it's really on who's leading at a given time. That can sometimes influence the election and give that person extra momentum, regardless of what their actual positions are."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Remember, they're trying to get viewership because the viewership is what makes the advertisers wanna advertise on their media outlets. And so to get viewership, one strategy is to make things really exciting, make it look like a sports competition, make it look like a horse race. And you see this, especially during elections, that oftentimes, the focus may not even be on the substance, it's really on who's leading at a given time. That can sometimes influence the election and give that person extra momentum, regardless of what their actual positions are. And here is an example of that. Hillary Clinton is extending her lead over Donald Trump in several national polls. CNN is releasing a brand new poll of polls, which is an average of the six last surveys."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That can sometimes influence the election and give that person extra momentum, regardless of what their actual positions are. And here is an example of that. Hillary Clinton is extending her lead over Donald Trump in several national polls. CNN is releasing a brand new poll of polls, which is an average of the six last surveys. And it shows Donald Trump trailing Hillary Clinton by 10 points. So how does he close that gap? Donald Trump's reached new heights in the latest Fox News poll."}, {"video_title": "Media as a linkage institution   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "CNN is releasing a brand new poll of polls, which is an average of the six last surveys. And it shows Donald Trump trailing Hillary Clinton by 10 points. So how does he close that gap? Donald Trump's reached new heights in the latest Fox News poll. With 39% of Republicans nationwide, he's more than doubling Ted Cruz at 18. Marco Rubio and Ben Carson are virtually tied for third within the poll's margin of error. So the media, definitely a very important linkage institution in our society."}, {"video_title": "What Reagan policies are still debated today    US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When Reagan was making the case for, basically, they called it the Reagan Revolution because it was a real departure from the way the federal government had been existing in American life. The debate had mostly been between Democrats and Republicans over to how best to manage the government. Ronald Reagan came in and said, no, just get government out of the conversation. That has continued to bounce along in politics. There was the most major fight on those lines with Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton. Since then, there have been pockets of it, but the appetite for deficit reduction, for shrinking government in order to make sure that the bills are paid by government, has kind of gone out of favor in Washington. It was a very big deal during the 90s and during the first 10 years of this century, but it has not really been as much a part of the conversation in politics as it once was."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What we're going to talk about in this video is the expansion of presidential power. We've already seen that the Constitution talks about the different powers that a president would have. But as we've gone forward in history, the Constitution hasn't imagined every circumstance that the president might face, and so there have been times where the presidents have used powers that aren't explicitly given in the Constitution. For example, as early as 1803, you have the Louisiana Purchase, where you have Thomas Jefferson buying land from Napoleon's France. It does not explicitly say anywhere in the Constitution that presidents are allowed to buy land from foreign countries. You fast forward a good bit to the Great Depression. You have Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who serves four terms in office, four terms in office, and also starts creating all of these various agencies in order to help stimulate the economy, so creates agencies."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "For example, as early as 1803, you have the Louisiana Purchase, where you have Thomas Jefferson buying land from Napoleon's France. It does not explicitly say anywhere in the Constitution that presidents are allowed to buy land from foreign countries. You fast forward a good bit to the Great Depression. You have Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who serves four terms in office, four terms in office, and also starts creating all of these various agencies in order to help stimulate the economy, so creates agencies. Many of the things that he did were not explicitly listed as powers of the president. And as you can imagine, as any member of the government, especially the president, starts taking on powers that aren't explicitly listed, it might make other people a little bit afraid. And so in reaction to some of this, there have been actions taken."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who serves four terms in office, four terms in office, and also starts creating all of these various agencies in order to help stimulate the economy, so creates agencies. Many of the things that he did were not explicitly listed as powers of the president. And as you can imagine, as any member of the government, especially the president, starts taking on powers that aren't explicitly listed, it might make other people a little bit afraid. And so in reaction to some of this, there have been actions taken. For example, because FDR had his four terms, you have the 22nd Amendment. And the 22nd Amendment says that no one can be elected to the office of the president more than two times, and no one can serve more than 10 years in office. That 10 years would come from if you take on office in the second half of someone else's administration, and then you get elected twice."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so in reaction to some of this, there have been actions taken. For example, because FDR had his four terms, you have the 22nd Amendment. And the 22nd Amendment says that no one can be elected to the office of the president more than two times, and no one can serve more than 10 years in office. That 10 years would come from if you take on office in the second half of someone else's administration, and then you get elected twice. And so the 22nd Amendment was really a check on this type of expansion of presidential power. Later on, you have things like the War Powers Act. Let me write that, War Powers Act, which is from 1973."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That 10 years would come from if you take on office in the second half of someone else's administration, and then you get elected twice. And so the 22nd Amendment was really a check on this type of expansion of presidential power. Later on, you have things like the War Powers Act. Let me write that, War Powers Act, which is from 1973. And this is at the end of the Vietnam War. Congress has been concerned, how did we get embroiled in this war, a war that in the early days did not have any type of official authorization from Congress but American troops were put on the ground in a foreign country? And so the War Powers Act in 1973 says that a president has to get congressional buy-in within 60 days of committing American troops."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let me write that, War Powers Act, which is from 1973. And this is at the end of the Vietnam War. Congress has been concerned, how did we get embroiled in this war, a war that in the early days did not have any type of official authorization from Congress but American troops were put on the ground in a foreign country? And so the War Powers Act in 1973 says that a president has to get congressional buy-in within 60 days of committing American troops. But to help us understand this issue, let's go all the way back to the Federalist Papers. Remember, the Federalist Papers were written in an attempt to get the Constitution ratified. And for the sake of this video, we're going to focus on Federalist Number 70, written by Alexander Hamilton."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the War Powers Act in 1973 says that a president has to get congressional buy-in within 60 days of committing American troops. But to help us understand this issue, let's go all the way back to the Federalist Papers. Remember, the Federalist Papers were written in an attempt to get the Constitution ratified. And for the sake of this video, we're going to focus on Federalist Number 70, written by Alexander Hamilton. In Federalist Number 70, Alexander Hamilton makes the case why you need to have a single individual who has significant power at the head of the executive branch. And you could imagine, this would have made some people wary because the United States had just gotten independence from George III, a king. And so some people might have been wary about kings and might have wanted maybe not one person in charge or maybe a committee in charge."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And for the sake of this video, we're going to focus on Federalist Number 70, written by Alexander Hamilton. In Federalist Number 70, Alexander Hamilton makes the case why you need to have a single individual who has significant power at the head of the executive branch. And you could imagine, this would have made some people wary because the United States had just gotten independence from George III, a king. And so some people might have been wary about kings and might have wanted maybe not one person in charge or maybe a committee in charge. But this is what Hamilton wrote. Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so some people might have been wary about kings and might have wanted maybe not one person in charge or maybe a committee in charge. But this is what Hamilton wrote. Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks. It is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws, to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice, to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks. It is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws, to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice, to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution. And a government ill-executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be in practice a bad government. That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution. And a government ill-executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be in practice a bad government. That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number. And in proportion, as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished. So he's making the argument for an energetic executive. And he's saying that, look, it has to, that power needs to be in one person."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number. And in proportion, as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished. So he's making the argument for an energetic executive. And he's saying that, look, it has to, that power needs to be in one person. Otherwise, it's going to be diluted amongst many. And the more people you have at the top of the executive, then these qualities of energy, of decisiveness, are going to be diminished. And it's interesting, he also talks about secrecy, which you don't always view as a positive."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he's saying that, look, it has to, that power needs to be in one person. Otherwise, it's going to be diluted amongst many. And the more people you have at the top of the executive, then these qualities of energy, of decisiveness, are going to be diminished. And it's interesting, he also talks about secrecy, which you don't always view as a positive. But maybe the argument is, if you really need to execute well, you don't have to tell everyone what you're doing, especially if you're trying to conduct a war and you don't want national secrets to get out. The plurality of the executive tends to deprive the people of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power. So here, he's further building the case that, hey, if you have many people in the executive, at the head of the executive, it's going to deprive the people of two great securities."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's interesting, he also talks about secrecy, which you don't always view as a positive. But maybe the argument is, if you really need to execute well, you don't have to tell everyone what you're doing, especially if you're trying to conduct a war and you don't want national secrets to get out. The plurality of the executive tends to deprive the people of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power. So here, he's further building the case that, hey, if you have many people in the executive, at the head of the executive, it's going to deprive the people of two great securities. First, the restraints of public opinion, which lose their efficacy as well on account of the division of the censure attendant on bad measures among a number as on account of the uncertainty on whom it ought to fall. So he's saying the restraints of public opinion don't work as well if there's many people at the top. If many people are making these executive decisions, then they don't know who to hold accountable."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So here, he's further building the case that, hey, if you have many people in the executive, at the head of the executive, it's going to deprive the people of two great securities. First, the restraints of public opinion, which lose their efficacy as well on account of the division of the censure attendant on bad measures among a number as on account of the uncertainty on whom it ought to fall. So he's saying the restraints of public opinion don't work as well if there's many people at the top. If many people are making these executive decisions, then they don't know who to hold accountable. They don't know who to blame. And secondly, the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust in order either to their removal from office or to their actual punishment in cases which admit of it. So once again, they're saying, if it's one person leading the executive and if they do something bad, you can punish them."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If many people are making these executive decisions, then they don't know who to hold accountable. They don't know who to blame. And secondly, the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust in order either to their removal from office or to their actual punishment in cases which admit of it. So once again, they're saying, if it's one person leading the executive and if they do something bad, you can punish them. You can remove them from office. But if it's many people, who do you blame? It might not be easy to hold them accountable."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So once again, they're saying, if it's one person leading the executive and if they do something bad, you can punish them. You can remove them from office. But if it's many people, who do you blame? It might not be easy to hold them accountable. But then if we fast forward to 1973, think about the situation that the country was in. We were at the end of the Vietnam War. President Nixon was going through the Watergate investigations."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It might not be easy to hold them accountable. But then if we fast forward to 1973, think about the situation that the country was in. We were at the end of the Vietnam War. President Nixon was going through the Watergate investigations. And you have the author, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., writes the Imperial Presidency. And it says right over here, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian traces the escalation of presidential power and considers what Congress and the people can do about it. And here's an excerpt of what he wrote."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "President Nixon was going through the Watergate investigations. And you have the author, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., writes the Imperial Presidency. And it says right over here, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian traces the escalation of presidential power and considers what Congress and the people can do about it. And here's an excerpt of what he wrote. Secrecy seemed to promise government three inestimable advantages, the power to withhold, the power to leak, and the power to lie. So it's clear that Arthur Schlesinger is not as big of a fan of secrecy as Alexander Hamilton was. The power to withhold held out the hope of denying the public the knowledge that would make possible an independent judgment on executive policy."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And here's an excerpt of what he wrote. Secrecy seemed to promise government three inestimable advantages, the power to withhold, the power to leak, and the power to lie. So it's clear that Arthur Schlesinger is not as big of a fan of secrecy as Alexander Hamilton was. The power to withhold held out the hope of denying the public the knowledge that would make possible an independent judgment on executive policy. The mystique of inside information, if you only knew what we know, was a most effective way to defend the national security monopoly and prevent democratic control of foreign policy. So he's saying, look, if you allow people to just not tell you things, they'll just say, hey, if you only knew what we knew, you would do what we're doing, but we can't tell you what we know, so you just have to trust us. The power to leak meant the power to tell the people what it served the government's purpose that they should know."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The power to withhold held out the hope of denying the public the knowledge that would make possible an independent judgment on executive policy. The mystique of inside information, if you only knew what we know, was a most effective way to defend the national security monopoly and prevent democratic control of foreign policy. So he's saying, look, if you allow people to just not tell you things, they'll just say, hey, if you only knew what we knew, you would do what we're doing, but we can't tell you what we know, so you just have to trust us. The power to leak meant the power to tell the people what it served the government's purpose that they should know. So once again, they can hold secret and say, hey, trust us, we're doing what's the right thing, but then they could selectively leak so that only certain information gets out that once again could be in the interest of those in power. The power to withhold and the power to leak led inexorably to the power to lie. The secrecy system instilled in the executive branch the idea that foreign policy was no one's business save its own."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The power to leak meant the power to tell the people what it served the government's purpose that they should know. So once again, they can hold secret and say, hey, trust us, we're doing what's the right thing, but then they could selectively leak so that only certain information gets out that once again could be in the interest of those in power. The power to withhold and the power to leak led inexorably to the power to lie. The secrecy system instilled in the executive branch the idea that foreign policy was no one's business save its own. And the uncontrolled secrecy made it easy for lying to become routine. It was in this spirit that Eisenhower concealed the CIA operations it was mounting against governments around the world. It was in this spirit that the Kennedy administration stealthily sent the Cuban Brigade to the Bay of Pigs and stealthily enlarged American involvement in Vietnam."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The secrecy system instilled in the executive branch the idea that foreign policy was no one's business save its own. And the uncontrolled secrecy made it easy for lying to become routine. It was in this spirit that Eisenhower concealed the CIA operations it was mounting against governments around the world. It was in this spirit that the Kennedy administration stealthily sent the Cuban Brigade to the Bay of Pigs and stealthily enlarged American involvement in Vietnam. It was in this spirit that the Johnson administration Americanized the Vietnam War, misrepresenting one episode after another to Congress and the people. Tonkin Gulf, which was the resolution based on a perceived attack on an American ship which was later judged to be just an explosion. The first American ground force commitment, the bombing of North Vietnam, My Lai and the rest."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It was in this spirit that the Kennedy administration stealthily sent the Cuban Brigade to the Bay of Pigs and stealthily enlarged American involvement in Vietnam. It was in this spirit that the Johnson administration Americanized the Vietnam War, misrepresenting one episode after another to Congress and the people. Tonkin Gulf, which was the resolution based on a perceived attack on an American ship which was later judged to be just an explosion. The first American ground force commitment, the bombing of North Vietnam, My Lai and the rest. And the My Lai Massacre is a famous massacre that eventually got out and it showed a massacre of civilians in Vietnam. But I'll let you decide. And it doesn't have to be the case that Alexander Hamilton was right 100% or that Arthur Schlesinger is right 100%."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The first American ground force commitment, the bombing of North Vietnam, My Lai and the rest. And the My Lai Massacre is a famous massacre that eventually got out and it showed a massacre of civilians in Vietnam. But I'll let you decide. And it doesn't have to be the case that Alexander Hamilton was right 100% or that Arthur Schlesinger is right 100%. It could be the case that, well, for the most part, it is important for an executive to have some degree of secrecy. Even some of the things that Arthur Schlesinger has talked about, where we're talking about the Bay of Pigs or we're talking about the CIA operations. Remember, this was during the Cold War."}, {"video_title": "Expansion of presidential power   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it doesn't have to be the case that Alexander Hamilton was right 100% or that Arthur Schlesinger is right 100%. It could be the case that, well, for the most part, it is important for an executive to have some degree of secrecy. Even some of the things that Arthur Schlesinger has talked about, where we're talking about the Bay of Pigs or we're talking about the CIA operations. Remember, this was during the Cold War. You had the Soviet Union out there with all of its spies. If it knew what was going on, it might be able to undermine American actions. So some degree of secrecy absolutely was necessary."}, {"video_title": "Service in the United States   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Most people immediately think of military service, serving in one of the branches of the armed forces, like the army or the air force. And military service is an important form of service. But it's not the only kind of national service. National service includes all of the voluntary or compulsory ways in which people serve their local communities, their state, or their nation. In addition to military service, there is also civilian service. This involves serving in institutions that benefit the United States or other countries, but are not part of the military. Some examples include AmeriCorps programs, which send volunteers to help with rebuilding parks, tutoring kids, or alleviating hunger and poverty, among other things."}, {"video_title": "Service in the United States   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "National service includes all of the voluntary or compulsory ways in which people serve their local communities, their state, or their nation. In addition to military service, there is also civilian service. This involves serving in institutions that benefit the United States or other countries, but are not part of the military. Some examples include AmeriCorps programs, which send volunteers to help with rebuilding parks, tutoring kids, or alleviating hunger and poverty, among other things. Teach for America, which sends outstanding college graduates to serve as teachers in low-income schools. Youth Build, which teaches construction skills to unemployed young people and helps them earn their high school diploma if they haven't already. And there's the Peace Corps, which sends Americans to promote social and economic development abroad."}, {"video_title": "Service in the United States   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Some examples include AmeriCorps programs, which send volunteers to help with rebuilding parks, tutoring kids, or alleviating hunger and poverty, among other things. Teach for America, which sends outstanding college graduates to serve as teachers in low-income schools. Youth Build, which teaches construction skills to unemployed young people and helps them earn their high school diploma if they haven't already. And there's the Peace Corps, which sends Americans to promote social and economic development abroad. Service in the United States is voluntary. Today, the U.S. armed forces are composed entirely of people who volunteered to serve, rather than people who were drafted. That wasn't always the case."}, {"video_title": "Service in the United States   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there's the Peace Corps, which sends Americans to promote social and economic development abroad. Service in the United States is voluntary. Today, the U.S. armed forces are composed entirely of people who volunteered to serve, rather than people who were drafted. That wasn't always the case. From 1940 to 1973, the United States had a compulsory military draft to fill vacancies in the armed services that couldn't be filled by volunteer means. After the Vietnam War, compulsory military service was suspended, but men and people assigned male at birth are still required to register for selective service from ages 18 to 25, as a standby in the event that a draft is reinstituted. Other countries do have national service requirements."}, {"video_title": "Service in the United States   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That wasn't always the case. From 1940 to 1973, the United States had a compulsory military draft to fill vacancies in the armed services that couldn't be filled by volunteer means. After the Vietnam War, compulsory military service was suspended, but men and people assigned male at birth are still required to register for selective service from ages 18 to 25, as a standby in the event that a draft is reinstituted. Other countries do have national service requirements. Israel mandates that all citizens over the age of 18 serve in the military for two years. In South Korea, men between the ages of 16 and 38 are required to serve in the military for at least 18 months. And effective in 2021, French citizens between 16 and 25 will have to participate in a month of universal national service, living in barracks, wearing uniforms, and learning about French culture, civics, and volunteering."}, {"video_title": "Service in the United States   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Other countries do have national service requirements. Israel mandates that all citizens over the age of 18 serve in the military for two years. In South Korea, men between the ages of 16 and 38 are required to serve in the military for at least 18 months. And effective in 2021, French citizens between 16 and 25 will have to participate in a month of universal national service, living in barracks, wearing uniforms, and learning about French culture, civics, and volunteering. And they won't be allowed to bring their cell phones with them. Some American politicians have proposed creating a national public service program in the United States, with one or two years of mandated national service for Americans between the ages of 18 and 25. They've argued that it would help defuse partisanship by bringing people with different ideologies together for a common purpose, and that it would save the government money by making use of volunteers for some labor."}, {"video_title": "Service in the United States   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And effective in 2021, French citizens between 16 and 25 will have to participate in a month of universal national service, living in barracks, wearing uniforms, and learning about French culture, civics, and volunteering. And they won't be allowed to bring their cell phones with them. Some American politicians have proposed creating a national public service program in the United States, with one or two years of mandated national service for Americans between the ages of 18 and 25. They've argued that it would help defuse partisanship by bringing people with different ideologies together for a common purpose, and that it would save the government money by making use of volunteers for some labor. Opponents of the idea have argued that mandating service would be a violation of individual liberty, and that it's unnecessary to force people to do it because so many people already volunteer. So what do you think? Should there be mandatory national service in the United States?"}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They don't always do this. In fact, it was quite infrequent for a very long time. The first signing statement was issued by James Monroe, but it was quite infrequent until we get to the modern times and starting with Ronald Reagan, they've become much, much more common for presidents of both parties. And even though it is not considered by legal scholars to be legally binding, so not legally binding, presidents still do it. And they have multiple reasons. Sometimes it acts as a bit of an explainer for why they are signing the law. They might say how great the law is, why they think it's a good idea, but sometimes they also say what problems there are in the law."}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And even though it is not considered by legal scholars to be legally binding, so not legally binding, presidents still do it. And they have multiple reasons. Sometimes it acts as a bit of an explainer for why they are signing the law. They might say how great the law is, why they think it's a good idea, but sometimes they also say what problems there are in the law. And in an extreme case, they can sometimes say that there are parts of the law that are unconstitutional. And those parts that are unconstitutional, the executive branch might not follow exactly the way the law states. Well, an obvious question is if it's not legally binding, why does the president even take the trouble?"}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They might say how great the law is, why they think it's a good idea, but sometimes they also say what problems there are in the law. And in an extreme case, they can sometimes say that there are parts of the law that are unconstitutional. And those parts that are unconstitutional, the executive branch might not follow exactly the way the law states. Well, an obvious question is if it's not legally binding, why does the president even take the trouble? Well, the explainer purpose might be political or it might rally up the base, but issuing a statement on the problems, it's the president's way of signaling to the entire executive branch and to Congress that hey, look, don't be surprised when I don't follow the letter of the law of the parts that I think are unconstitutional. And to make this tangible, let's look at some actual signing statements. This is a signing statement by President George W. Bush in 2006."}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, an obvious question is if it's not legally binding, why does the president even take the trouble? Well, the explainer purpose might be political or it might rally up the base, but issuing a statement on the problems, it's the president's way of signaling to the entire executive branch and to Congress that hey, look, don't be surprised when I don't follow the letter of the law of the parts that I think are unconstitutional. And to make this tangible, let's look at some actual signing statements. This is a signing statement by President George W. Bush in 2006. Today I have signed into law HR 972, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005. This act enhances our ability to combat trafficking in persons by extending and improving prosecutorial and diplomatic tools and also adds new protections for victims. So that part's kind of an explainer."}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is a signing statement by President George W. Bush in 2006. Today I have signed into law HR 972, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005. This act enhances our ability to combat trafficking in persons by extending and improving prosecutorial and diplomatic tools and also adds new protections for victims. So that part's kind of an explainer. But then it goes on to say, section 104 purports to require the Secretary of State prior to voting for a new or reauthorized peacekeeping mission under the auspices of a multilateral organization to submit to the Congress a specific report. The executive branch shall construe this reporting requirement in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief and the President's constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs. And so what they're saying is, hey, hold on a second here, Congress."}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that part's kind of an explainer. But then it goes on to say, section 104 purports to require the Secretary of State prior to voting for a new or reauthorized peacekeeping mission under the auspices of a multilateral organization to submit to the Congress a specific report. The executive branch shall construe this reporting requirement in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief and the President's constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs. And so what they're saying is, hey, hold on a second here, Congress. You want our Secretary of State before making this decision to submit a report every time? You're kind of starting to muck with how the executive branch executes there. So this is signaling a bit to the Congress as, hey, don't be surprised if we don't follow this exactly the way that you are expecting."}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so what they're saying is, hey, hold on a second here, Congress. You want our Secretary of State before making this decision to submit a report every time? You're kind of starting to muck with how the executive branch executes there. So this is signaling a bit to the Congress as, hey, don't be surprised if we don't follow this exactly the way that you are expecting. You have a similar tone in an executive order from President Obama in 2009. Today I have signed into law HR 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act 2009. This bill completes the work of last year by providing the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our nation's government."}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is signaling a bit to the Congress as, hey, don't be surprised if we don't follow this exactly the way that you are expecting. You have a similar tone in an executive order from President Obama in 2009. Today I have signed into law HR 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act 2009. This bill completes the work of last year by providing the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our nation's government. So once again, a bit of an explainer. But then it goes on to say, the Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of the bill raise constitutional concerns. And then it goes on to list actually several bullet points, and I'm just going to give you one of them just so you get a sense of things."}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This bill completes the work of last year by providing the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our nation's government. So once again, a bit of an explainer. But then it goes on to say, the Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of the bill raise constitutional concerns. And then it goes on to list actually several bullet points, and I'm just going to give you one of them just so you get a sense of things. Legislative aggrandizements, committee approval requirements. So when you aggrandize yourself, it's making yourself more than you really are. And so a legislative aggrandizement is the legislative branch trying to go beyond their legislative powers."}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then it goes on to list actually several bullet points, and I'm just going to give you one of them just so you get a sense of things. Legislative aggrandizements, committee approval requirements. So when you aggrandize yourself, it's making yourself more than you really are. And so a legislative aggrandizement is the legislative branch trying to go beyond their legislative powers. Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees."}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so a legislative aggrandizement is the legislative branch trying to go beyond their legislative powers. Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. So here, in this signing statement, President Obama is saying, look, look, this is overstepping the bounds of legislative authority to tell us how we will spend these things. We'll take your advice under consideration, but dictating how to execute is not the job of the legislative branch. So I'll leave you there."}, {"video_title": "Presidential signing statements   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Therefore, although my administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. So here, in this signing statement, President Obama is saying, look, look, this is overstepping the bounds of legislative authority to tell us how we will spend these things. We'll take your advice under consideration, but dictating how to execute is not the job of the legislative branch. So I'll leave you there. I encourage you to look up more presidential signing statements. They're readily available on the internet. They're part of the Federal Registry."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In many videos, we have talked about how a bill can become a law. It first gets introduced into the legislative branch, which in the United States is the US Congress at the federal level. And if it passes both houses of Congress, then the bill will go to the president. And if the president signs the bill, or if the president vetoes the bill, but then it gets overruled by the legislative, then, let's just assume that the president signs, signs the bill, then that bill becomes a law. It becomes a law. But the question is, is how is this law actually implemented? And you might guess that that is the work of the bureaucracy."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if the president signs the bill, or if the president vetoes the bill, but then it gets overruled by the legislative, then, let's just assume that the president signs, signs the bill, then that bill becomes a law. It becomes a law. But the question is, is how is this law actually implemented? And you might guess that that is the work of the bureaucracy. And we've already talked about the bureaucracy in multiple videos already. The bureaucracy is part of the executive branch. It's actually the bulk of federal employees."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you might guess that that is the work of the bureaucracy. And we've already talked about the bureaucracy in multiple videos already. The bureaucracy is part of the executive branch. It's actually the bulk of federal employees. And as we'll see, as part of this implementing process, the bureaucracy has authority on rulemaking, and it also has discretionary authority. Let me write that down. So the bureaucracy, bureaucracy, is going to implement the law, and they have different types of authority to do so."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's actually the bulk of federal employees. And as we'll see, as part of this implementing process, the bureaucracy has authority on rulemaking, and it also has discretionary authority. Let me write that down. So the bureaucracy, bureaucracy, is going to implement the law, and they have different types of authority to do so. They have rulemaking authority, where for specific circumstances, they might say, hey, this is how it's going to work, that the law itself does not specify, but based on what that law is trying to do, they're going to set some rules. And as we'll see, the people working inside the bureaucracy, many of whom are experts on whatever policy they're trying to implement, have some discretion on how they actually implement this law. So their authority, sometimes you'll hear rulemaking authority, and discretionary authority."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the bureaucracy, bureaucracy, is going to implement the law, and they have different types of authority to do so. They have rulemaking authority, where for specific circumstances, they might say, hey, this is how it's going to work, that the law itself does not specify, but based on what that law is trying to do, they're going to set some rules. And as we'll see, the people working inside the bureaucracy, many of whom are experts on whatever policy they're trying to implement, have some discretion on how they actually implement this law. So their authority, sometimes you'll hear rulemaking authority, and discretionary authority. And as an example of that, we can look at what is often known as Title IX. So this right over here is Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. It passed through Congress, and then was signed into law by President Nixon."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So their authority, sometimes you'll hear rulemaking authority, and discretionary authority. And as an example of that, we can look at what is often known as Title IX. So this right over here is Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. It passed through Congress, and then was signed into law by President Nixon. And it says, no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. So this gets through the legislature, President Nixon signs it, it becomes a law, but then how does this thing actually get implemented? And so this, as we've already talked about, is the job of the bureaucracy."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It passed through Congress, and then was signed into law by President Nixon. And it says, no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. So this gets through the legislature, President Nixon signs it, it becomes a law, but then how does this thing actually get implemented? And so this, as we've already talked about, is the job of the bureaucracy. And it's not just one department. Many departments of the federal government are going to have to think about how do they implement this statute right over here. And as an example of how, say, the Department of Education thought about it, I'll give you a little bit of an excerpt from their rules and regulations."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so this, as we've already talked about, is the job of the bureaucracy. And it's not just one department. Many departments of the federal government are going to have to think about how do they implement this statute right over here. And as an example of how, say, the Department of Education thought about it, I'll give you a little bit of an excerpt from their rules and regulations. So this right over here is part of the rules and regulations from the Department of Education in their attempt to implement Title IX. And as I read, think about what part of this really shows the bureaucracy's rulemaking authority and what part shows its discretionary authority. Every application for federal financial assistance shall, as condition of its approval, contain or be accompanied by an assurance from the applicant or recipient satisfactory to the assistant secretary that the education program or activity operated by the applicant or recipient and to which this part applies will be operated in compliance with this part."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And as an example of how, say, the Department of Education thought about it, I'll give you a little bit of an excerpt from their rules and regulations. So this right over here is part of the rules and regulations from the Department of Education in their attempt to implement Title IX. And as I read, think about what part of this really shows the bureaucracy's rulemaking authority and what part shows its discretionary authority. Every application for federal financial assistance shall, as condition of its approval, contain or be accompanied by an assurance from the applicant or recipient satisfactory to the assistant secretary that the education program or activity operated by the applicant or recipient and to which this part applies will be operated in compliance with this part. So that is a mouthful. I will help you parse it a little bit. So in this document, the term applicant and recipient, these are the institutions that are either applying for federal assistance or have already received financial assistance."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Every application for federal financial assistance shall, as condition of its approval, contain or be accompanied by an assurance from the applicant or recipient satisfactory to the assistant secretary that the education program or activity operated by the applicant or recipient and to which this part applies will be operated in compliance with this part. So that is a mouthful. I will help you parse it a little bit. So in this document, the term applicant and recipient, these are the institutions that are either applying for federal assistance or have already received financial assistance. And it's saying every application for federal financial assistance shall, as condition for its approval, contain or be accompanied by an assurance from the applicant or recipient. So in a big picture, this whole thing is a rule that is being set up by the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education. So it clearly shows rulemaking authority."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So in this document, the term applicant and recipient, these are the institutions that are either applying for federal assistance or have already received financial assistance. And it's saying every application for federal financial assistance shall, as condition for its approval, contain or be accompanied by an assurance from the applicant or recipient. So in a big picture, this whole thing is a rule that is being set up by the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education. So it clearly shows rulemaking authority. And this is just one part of a much, much, much larger document full of rules on how just the Department of Education is thinking about Title IX. And these things have the rule of law, even though every detail here has not been passed through Congress. Now, of course, Congress will have forms of oversight over this, and the Supreme Court can also deem certain rules or regulations to be unconstitutional if it thinks that they are unconstitutional."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it clearly shows rulemaking authority. And this is just one part of a much, much, much larger document full of rules on how just the Department of Education is thinking about Title IX. And these things have the rule of law, even though every detail here has not been passed through Congress. Now, of course, Congress will have forms of oversight over this, and the Supreme Court can also deem certain rules or regulations to be unconstitutional if it thinks that they are unconstitutional. Now, another thing in this clause right over here that I just read, you might have noticed, satisfactory to the assistant secretary. So it's the assistant secretary's discretion as to whether an institution has met the requirements. So once again, this shows the discretionary authority of the bureaucracy."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, of course, Congress will have forms of oversight over this, and the Supreme Court can also deem certain rules or regulations to be unconstitutional if it thinks that they are unconstitutional. Now, another thing in this clause right over here that I just read, you might have noticed, satisfactory to the assistant secretary. So it's the assistant secretary's discretion as to whether an institution has met the requirements. So once again, this shows the discretionary authority of the bureaucracy. So the big takeaway here is it is the legislative branch that is responsible for passing laws. And then you have the president that would sign something into law. But once it's a law, there's a lot of details to be worked out in terms of how it's implemented."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So once again, this shows the discretionary authority of the bureaucracy. So the big takeaway here is it is the legislative branch that is responsible for passing laws. And then you have the president that would sign something into law. But once it's a law, there's a lot of details to be worked out in terms of how it's implemented. And that is the job of the bureaucracy. And in order to do that, they make rules and regulations. And those rules and regulations also have the force of law."}, {"video_title": "How did Reagan's policies affect the economy   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What Ronald Reagan believed is that good programs, he had been a New Deal Democrat, he believed that what had happened was good programs that had tried to help people who needed the help, the poor, the infirm, the elderly, those programs had ballooned. And what had happened was they were no longer prioritizing help to those who needed it, but they had become a kind of system where those who made the loudest noise got the most government, got the most money and got the attention from the government. And that that, in fact, stopped helping people in need and ended up hurting people, ended up sort of entrapping them in government dependence. And so what he said was he was going to do two big things. He was, or three big things, actually. He was going to cut taxes, and what that was going to do was shrink the amount of available money towards government, which he was then going to also do by cutting spending, and he was going to cut regulations. So it was essentially paring down government, which he thought was inefficient towards the giving resources to those who need it."}, {"video_title": "How did Reagan's policies affect the economy   US Government and Civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so what he said was he was going to do two big things. He was, or three big things, actually. He was going to cut taxes, and what that was going to do was shrink the amount of available money towards government, which he was then going to also do by cutting spending, and he was going to cut regulations. So it was essentially paring down government, which he thought was inefficient towards the giving resources to those who need it. He wanted a lot of that power to go back to the states. And he also believed in an economic program that both cut money from domestic spending, but also cut taxes, which he believed would actually generate more revenue because of something called supply-side economics. And so his both economic theory and his theory about shrinking government were kind of matched up in his first budget and in his first major tax cut."}, {"video_title": "Categorical grants, mandates, and the Commerce Clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But you could also view it as a layered form of government where you have your local government and then layered on top of that your state government and then layered on top of that your national government, often referred to as the federal government. And we looked at the example of a layered cake but have said that over the course of American history, the layers have gotten more and more mixed, more like a marbled cake. And it's been mixed more in the favor of the national or the federal government. Even though certain powers were historically more associated with the states, as we will see, there are several levers that the federal government has used in order to extend its power into the domain of what used to be associated with primarily the states. So one is the notion of categorical grants. So these are grants for a specific purpose where the federal government says, hey, states, we're gonna give you some money, but you've gotta use this money in exactly the way that we're telling you. Now, to be clear, not all grants are categorical grants."}, {"video_title": "Categorical grants, mandates, and the Commerce Clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Even though certain powers were historically more associated with the states, as we will see, there are several levers that the federal government has used in order to extend its power into the domain of what used to be associated with primarily the states. So one is the notion of categorical grants. So these are grants for a specific purpose where the federal government says, hey, states, we're gonna give you some money, but you've gotta use this money in exactly the way that we're telling you. Now, to be clear, not all grants are categorical grants. You have things like block grants where the federal government can give a grant to a state and say, hey, use this to generally improve the safety of your citizens. That would still give a lot of leeway to the states. But in categorical grants, it's very specific in terms of how the states are to use that money, even if historically it was something where the states had the powers."}, {"video_title": "Categorical grants, mandates, and the Commerce Clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, to be clear, not all grants are categorical grants. You have things like block grants where the federal government can give a grant to a state and say, hey, use this to generally improve the safety of your citizens. That would still give a lot of leeway to the states. But in categorical grants, it's very specific in terms of how the states are to use that money, even if historically it was something where the states had the powers. So an example of this would be the federal program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC. And to get an idea of how prescriptive it is, here is an outline of the program on the USDA website, a federal government agency. And if we go down here, you can even see things like income requirements, and there'll be income eligibility guidelines."}, {"video_title": "Categorical grants, mandates, and the Commerce Clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But in categorical grants, it's very specific in terms of how the states are to use that money, even if historically it was something where the states had the powers. So an example of this would be the federal program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC. And to get an idea of how prescriptive it is, here is an outline of the program on the USDA website, a federal government agency. And if we go down here, you can even see things like income requirements, and there'll be income eligibility guidelines. These are set by the federal government, not by the states. Along those lines, you also have mandates. So a mandate is the federal government tying funding to one thing based on state compliance with another thing."}, {"video_title": "Categorical grants, mandates, and the Commerce Clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if we go down here, you can even see things like income requirements, and there'll be income eligibility guidelines. These are set by the federal government, not by the states. Along those lines, you also have mandates. So a mandate is the federal government tying funding to one thing based on state compliance with another thing. For example, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which was passed in 1984, ties federal highway funds to states raising their minimum drinking age to 21. And I had direct experience with this act when I was growing up in Louisiana. Louisiana decided not to comply by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, so the drinking age was 18, but because they didn't comply, they weren't getting as much federal funding for highways, and the highways weren't as good as in other states."}, {"video_title": "Categorical grants, mandates, and the Commerce Clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So a mandate is the federal government tying funding to one thing based on state compliance with another thing. For example, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which was passed in 1984, ties federal highway funds to states raising their minimum drinking age to 21. And I had direct experience with this act when I was growing up in Louisiana. Louisiana decided not to comply by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, so the drinking age was 18, but because they didn't comply, they weren't getting as much federal funding for highways, and the highways weren't as good as in other states. So even though the drinking age is something that might be considered a state power, the federal government was able to exercise a lot of influence on most states by tying what the federal government wanted to highway funds. Now, outside of these examples of the federal government tying state funds to the states doing what the federal government wants, the federal government has also made use of the US Constitution in order to broaden its powers, in particular, the Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8. You might remember, that's the part where they say, \"'The Congress shall have power,' and then they list a bunch of powers, but one of them, the Commerce Clause, is to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes."}, {"video_title": "Categorical grants, mandates, and the Commerce Clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Louisiana decided not to comply by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, so the drinking age was 18, but because they didn't comply, they weren't getting as much federal funding for highways, and the highways weren't as good as in other states. So even though the drinking age is something that might be considered a state power, the federal government was able to exercise a lot of influence on most states by tying what the federal government wanted to highway funds. Now, outside of these examples of the federal government tying state funds to the states doing what the federal government wants, the federal government has also made use of the US Constitution in order to broaden its powers, in particular, the Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8. You might remember, that's the part where they say, \"'The Congress shall have power,' and then they list a bunch of powers, but one of them, the Commerce Clause, is to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes. And the key part of the Commerce Clause is among the several states. Over the course of American history, this ability to regulate interstate commerce, commerce between states, the federal government has used that to justify regulations and laws that focus on issues that may at first be perceived as a state power, but use the argument that it affects interstate commerce in order to regulate it. And as you can imagine, when you have free-flowing commerce between states, you have the same currency, you don't have tariffs between states, many things that you would traditionally view as the power of the state, one could argue would have some influence on interstate commerce."}, {"video_title": "Categorical grants, mandates, and the Commerce Clause   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You might remember, that's the part where they say, \"'The Congress shall have power,' and then they list a bunch of powers, but one of them, the Commerce Clause, is to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes. And the key part of the Commerce Clause is among the several states. Over the course of American history, this ability to regulate interstate commerce, commerce between states, the federal government has used that to justify regulations and laws that focus on issues that may at first be perceived as a state power, but use the argument that it affects interstate commerce in order to regulate it. And as you can imagine, when you have free-flowing commerce between states, you have the same currency, you don't have tariffs between states, many things that you would traditionally view as the power of the state, one could argue would have some influence on interstate commerce. One notable example of this would be federal drug laws, where a state could decide to, say, legalize marijuana, but the federal government can make it pretty difficult by regulating how is that marijuana transported, or where does the cash for that marijuana get deposited? Does it get deposited in a bank that has associations with the Federal Reserve that needs to transfer that money across state lines? So the Interstate Commerce Clause has more influence on state affairs than you might initially think."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So generally speaking, you could view it as efforts to improve opportunities for underrepresented groups, and oftentimes it will be for underrepresented racial or ethnic groups, or for women. To help us think through the types of efforts that might be classified, or that might be associated with affirmative action, we can set up a little bit of a spectrum here. At one end of the spectrum, you could have outright quotas. These could be situations where, say, a university admissions department says, we are going to say 10% of our class is going to be from this group, or from that group. In between, you could have race or gender-aware admissions, where it is a factor in admissions. Race, gender is a factor, is a factor. And at this end of the spectrum, there's outreach to groups to make sure that people who could be qualified, who are from underrepresented groups, are applying."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These could be situations where, say, a university admissions department says, we are going to say 10% of our class is going to be from this group, or from that group. In between, you could have race or gender-aware admissions, where it is a factor in admissions. Race, gender is a factor, is a factor. And at this end of the spectrum, there's outreach to groups to make sure that people who could be qualified, who are from underrepresented groups, are applying. So this would be outreach. Now, in popular language today, affirmative action tends to refer to things more on this end of the spectrum. And the phrase affirmative action first comes into popular usage during Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And at this end of the spectrum, there's outreach to groups to make sure that people who could be qualified, who are from underrepresented groups, are applying. So this would be outreach. Now, in popular language today, affirmative action tends to refer to things more on this end of the spectrum. And the phrase affirmative action first comes into popular usage during Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency. Now, as you can imagine, this is a very sensitive topic, because on one hand, folks could say, yes, it would be nice to give opportunity for folks who historically have not had opportunity, or folks who are historically underrepresented. But other people might say, well, shouldn't we be a race-blind society? If you are factoring race for one group, well, doesn't that hurt another group?"}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the phrase affirmative action first comes into popular usage during Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency. Now, as you can imagine, this is a very sensitive topic, because on one hand, folks could say, yes, it would be nice to give opportunity for folks who historically have not had opportunity, or folks who are historically underrepresented. But other people might say, well, shouldn't we be a race-blind society? If you are factoring race for one group, well, doesn't that hurt another group? And couldn't it cause reverse discrimination? And to appreciate the legal history here, we can go back to 1978, where we have the case Regents of the University of California v. Backe in the United States Supreme Court. And this is a situation where Backe is a former soldier and engineer who also happens to be white, who wants to go to medical school."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you are factoring race for one group, well, doesn't that hurt another group? And couldn't it cause reverse discrimination? And to appreciate the legal history here, we can go back to 1978, where we have the case Regents of the University of California v. Backe in the United States Supreme Court. And this is a situation where Backe is a former soldier and engineer who also happens to be white, who wants to go to medical school. He gets rejected by the University of California at Davis, and he claims that there was reverse discrimination at play because they had a quota system. 16 out of the 100 seats at the medical school were reserved for underrepresented minorities. And the Supreme Court actually had trouble deciding on this case."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is a situation where Backe is a former soldier and engineer who also happens to be white, who wants to go to medical school. He gets rejected by the University of California at Davis, and he claims that there was reverse discrimination at play because they had a quota system. 16 out of the 100 seats at the medical school were reserved for underrepresented minorities. And the Supreme Court actually had trouble deciding on this case. It was a very divided opinion, and eventually Justice Powell's opinion became the opinion that people paid attention to. And it was a little bit mixed. It said that outright quotas are unconstitutional, and that Backe should be allowed admission, and he was able to go to University of California Davis Medical School."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the Supreme Court actually had trouble deciding on this case. It was a very divided opinion, and eventually Justice Powell's opinion became the opinion that people paid attention to. And it was a little bit mixed. It said that outright quotas are unconstitutional, and that Backe should be allowed admission, and he was able to go to University of California Davis Medical School. But Justice Powell tried to thread the needle by saying even though quotas might be unconstitutional, it is okay to consider race as a factor in admissions, especially if it's being used for the educational benefit of diversity of the community. In 1996, the voters of California actually voted directly on this issue, and they passed the California Civil Rights Initiative, more commonly known as Proposition 209. And this proposition made it illegal to consider race, sex, or ethnicity when it came to government jobs or admissions in state schools."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It said that outright quotas are unconstitutional, and that Backe should be allowed admission, and he was able to go to University of California Davis Medical School. But Justice Powell tried to thread the needle by saying even though quotas might be unconstitutional, it is okay to consider race as a factor in admissions, especially if it's being used for the educational benefit of diversity of the community. In 1996, the voters of California actually voted directly on this issue, and they passed the California Civil Rights Initiative, more commonly known as Proposition 209. And this proposition made it illegal to consider race, sex, or ethnicity when it came to government jobs or admissions in state schools. It has been challenged by proponents of affirmative action many times, but all of those challenges have been unsuccessful to date. These issues surface again in the Supreme Court in 2003, when we get to the Grutter versus Bollinger case. This case has some parallels to the Backe case."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this proposition made it illegal to consider race, sex, or ethnicity when it came to government jobs or admissions in state schools. It has been challenged by proponents of affirmative action many times, but all of those challenges have been unsuccessful to date. These issues surface again in the Supreme Court in 2003, when we get to the Grutter versus Bollinger case. This case has some parallels to the Backe case. In this case, Grutter is a white applicant to the University of Michigan Law School who claims that she was denied admission because the law school was giving racial preference, which was causing essentially reverse discrimination. The Supreme Court rules against Grutter, but it's really interesting to read the majority opinion written by Sander Day O'Connor and the dissenting opinion from Clarence Thomas, because it gives us some texture into the nuances of these decisions. Here is an excerpt from Sander Day O'Connor's majority opinion."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This case has some parallels to the Backe case. In this case, Grutter is a white applicant to the University of Michigan Law School who claims that she was denied admission because the law school was giving racial preference, which was causing essentially reverse discrimination. The Supreme Court rules against Grutter, but it's really interesting to read the majority opinion written by Sander Day O'Connor and the dissenting opinion from Clarence Thomas, because it gives us some texture into the nuances of these decisions. Here is an excerpt from Sander Day O'Connor's majority opinion. We last addressed the use of race in public higher education over 25 years ago. In the landmark Backe case, we reviewed a racial set-aside program that reserved 16 out of 100 seats in a medical school class for members of certain minority groups. Since this court's splintered decision in Backe, Justice Powell's opinion announcing the judgment of the court has served as the touchstone for constitutional analysis of race-conscious admissions policies."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Here is an excerpt from Sander Day O'Connor's majority opinion. We last addressed the use of race in public higher education over 25 years ago. In the landmark Backe case, we reviewed a racial set-aside program that reserved 16 out of 100 seats in a medical school class for members of certain minority groups. Since this court's splintered decision in Backe, Justice Powell's opinion announcing the judgment of the court has served as the touchstone for constitutional analysis of race-conscious admissions policies. And then she goes on to list the situations that Justice Powell said were not okay to justify race as a factor in admissions. Justice Powell rejected an interest in reducing the historic deficit of traditionally disfavored minorities in medical schools and in the medical profession as an unlawful interest in racial balancing. So according to Justice Powell in the Backe case, you can't justify race-conscious admissions to try to fix historic deficits."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Since this court's splintered decision in Backe, Justice Powell's opinion announcing the judgment of the court has served as the touchstone for constitutional analysis of race-conscious admissions policies. And then she goes on to list the situations that Justice Powell said were not okay to justify race as a factor in admissions. Justice Powell rejected an interest in reducing the historic deficit of traditionally disfavored minorities in medical schools and in the medical profession as an unlawful interest in racial balancing. So according to Justice Powell in the Backe case, you can't justify race-conscious admissions to try to fix historic deficits. Sander Day O'Connor goes on to write, \"'Justice Powell' in the Backe case \"'rejected an interest in remedying societal discrimination \"'because such measures would risk placing \"'unnecessary burdens on innocent third parties \"'who bear no responsibility for whatever harm \"'the beneficiaries of the special admissions program \"'are thought to have suffered.'\" So you also can't have race-conscious admissions if the goal is to remedy current societal discrimination because if you're benefiting someone, you're also putting the burden on people who might have nothing to do with that societal discrimination. And then she goes on to write that in the Backe case, \"'Justice Powell approved the university's use,' and here we're talking about the University of California's use, \"'of race to further only one interest, \"'the attainment of a diverse student body.'\""}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So according to Justice Powell in the Backe case, you can't justify race-conscious admissions to try to fix historic deficits. Sander Day O'Connor goes on to write, \"'Justice Powell' in the Backe case \"'rejected an interest in remedying societal discrimination \"'because such measures would risk placing \"'unnecessary burdens on innocent third parties \"'who bear no responsibility for whatever harm \"'the beneficiaries of the special admissions program \"'are thought to have suffered.'\" So you also can't have race-conscious admissions if the goal is to remedy current societal discrimination because if you're benefiting someone, you're also putting the burden on people who might have nothing to do with that societal discrimination. And then she goes on to write that in the Backe case, \"'Justice Powell approved the university's use,' and here we're talking about the University of California's use, \"'of race to further only one interest, \"'the attainment of a diverse student body.'\" And now in this part of the excerpt, she shifts to talking about the case at hand in Grutter versus Bollinger where we're talking about admissions to the University of Michigan Law School. \"'As part of its goal of assembling a class \"'that is both exceptionally academically qualified \"'and broadly diverse, \"'the law school seeks to enroll a critical mass \"'of minority students. \"'The law school's concept of critical mass \"'is defined by reference to the educational benefits \"'that diversity is designed to produce."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then she goes on to write that in the Backe case, \"'Justice Powell approved the university's use,' and here we're talking about the University of California's use, \"'of race to further only one interest, \"'the attainment of a diverse student body.'\" And now in this part of the excerpt, she shifts to talking about the case at hand in Grutter versus Bollinger where we're talking about admissions to the University of Michigan Law School. \"'As part of its goal of assembling a class \"'that is both exceptionally academically qualified \"'and broadly diverse, \"'the law school seeks to enroll a critical mass \"'of minority students. \"'The law school's concept of critical mass \"'is defined by reference to the educational benefits \"'that diversity is designed to produce. \"'These benefits are substantial. \"'As the district court emphasized, \"'the law school's admissions policy \"'promotes cross-racial understanding, \"'helps to break down racial stereotypes, \"'and enables students to better understand \"'persons of different races. \"'We,' the majority in the Supreme Court, \"'agree that in the context of its individualized inquiry \"'into the possible diversity contributions \"'of all applicants, \"'the law school's race-conscious admissions program \"'does not unduly harm non-minority applicants."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "\"'The law school's concept of critical mass \"'is defined by reference to the educational benefits \"'that diversity is designed to produce. \"'These benefits are substantial. \"'As the district court emphasized, \"'the law school's admissions policy \"'promotes cross-racial understanding, \"'helps to break down racial stereotypes, \"'and enables students to better understand \"'persons of different races. \"'We,' the majority in the Supreme Court, \"'agree that in the context of its individualized inquiry \"'into the possible diversity contributions \"'of all applicants, \"'the law school's race-conscious admissions program \"'does not unduly harm non-minority applicants. \"'In summary, the Equal Protection Clause \"'of the 14th Amendment \"'does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use \"'of race and admissions decisions \"'to further a compelling interest \"'in obtaining the educational benefits \"'that flow from a diverse student body.'\" So in this situation, the majority opinion that's penned by Justice O'Connor is clarifying Powell's statement in Bakke, saying that diversity is a legitimate educational benefit that universities can optimize around, as long as race is one of many factors in the admissions process. Now on the other hand, you have the dissenting opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "\"'We,' the majority in the Supreme Court, \"'agree that in the context of its individualized inquiry \"'into the possible diversity contributions \"'of all applicants, \"'the law school's race-conscious admissions program \"'does not unduly harm non-minority applicants. \"'In summary, the Equal Protection Clause \"'of the 14th Amendment \"'does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use \"'of race and admissions decisions \"'to further a compelling interest \"'in obtaining the educational benefits \"'that flow from a diverse student body.'\" So in this situation, the majority opinion that's penned by Justice O'Connor is clarifying Powell's statement in Bakke, saying that diversity is a legitimate educational benefit that universities can optimize around, as long as race is one of many factors in the admissions process. Now on the other hand, you have the dissenting opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas. Here's an excerpt. He wrote, \"'I believe blacks can achieve \"'in every avenue of American life \"'without the meddling of university administrators. \"'Because I wish to see all students succeed \"'whatever their color, \"'I share, in some respect, \"'the sympathies of those who sponsor \"'the type of discrimination advanced \"'by the University of Michigan Law School."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now on the other hand, you have the dissenting opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas. Here's an excerpt. He wrote, \"'I believe blacks can achieve \"'in every avenue of American life \"'without the meddling of university administrators. \"'Because I wish to see all students succeed \"'whatever their color, \"'I share, in some respect, \"'the sympathies of those who sponsor \"'the type of discrimination advanced \"'by the University of Michigan Law School. \"'The Constitution does not, however, \"'tolerate institutional devotion \"'to the status quo and admissions policies \"'when such devotion ripens into racial discrimination.'\" So he's calling the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policies outright discrimination. He's saying that look, even though it might be the status quo, it's essentially what a lot of universities have been doing since Backe, it's not okay because it has ripened into racial discrimination."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "\"'Because I wish to see all students succeed \"'whatever their color, \"'I share, in some respect, \"'the sympathies of those who sponsor \"'the type of discrimination advanced \"'by the University of Michigan Law School. \"'The Constitution does not, however, \"'tolerate institutional devotion \"'to the status quo and admissions policies \"'when such devotion ripens into racial discrimination.'\" So he's calling the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policies outright discrimination. He's saying that look, even though it might be the status quo, it's essentially what a lot of universities have been doing since Backe, it's not okay because it has ripened into racial discrimination. The majority, he's talking about the majority of the Supreme Court, upholds the law school's racial discrimination not by interpreting the people's constitution, so the US Constitution, but by responding to a faddish slogan of the cognoscenti. So here he's making reference to this idea of diversity, which he's calling a faddish slogan of the cognoscenti. Cognoscenti would be people who are in the know or people who think they're in the know."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's saying that look, even though it might be the status quo, it's essentially what a lot of universities have been doing since Backe, it's not okay because it has ripened into racial discrimination. The majority, he's talking about the majority of the Supreme Court, upholds the law school's racial discrimination not by interpreting the people's constitution, so the US Constitution, but by responding to a faddish slogan of the cognoscenti. So here he's making reference to this idea of diversity, which he's calling a faddish slogan of the cognoscenti. Cognoscenti would be people who are in the know or people who think they're in the know. \"'Nevertheless, I concur in part in the Court's opinion. \"'I agree with the Court's holding \"'that racial discrimination in higher education admissions \"'will be illegal in 25 years.'\" And here he's making reference that in Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion, she did say that in 25 years, it might not be okay to have race-conscious admissions."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Cognoscenti would be people who are in the know or people who think they're in the know. \"'Nevertheless, I concur in part in the Court's opinion. \"'I agree with the Court's holding \"'that racial discrimination in higher education admissions \"'will be illegal in 25 years.'\" And here he's making reference that in Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion, she did say that in 25 years, it might not be okay to have race-conscious admissions. \"'I respectfully dissent from the remainder \"'of the Court's opinion and the judgment, however, \"'because I believe that the law school's current use of race \"'violates the Equal Protection Clause, \"'and that the Constitution means the same thing today \"'as it will in 300 months.'\" So here he's saying, look, if the majority thinks that it's right now okay to have race-conscious admissions, but it's not okay in 25 years, well, what's gonna change about the Constitution? If it's going to be unconstitutional in 25 years, it should be unconstitutional today."}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And here he's making reference that in Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion, she did say that in 25 years, it might not be okay to have race-conscious admissions. \"'I respectfully dissent from the remainder \"'of the Court's opinion and the judgment, however, \"'because I believe that the law school's current use of race \"'violates the Equal Protection Clause, \"'and that the Constitution means the same thing today \"'as it will in 300 months.'\" So here he's saying, look, if the majority thinks that it's right now okay to have race-conscious admissions, but it's not okay in 25 years, well, what's gonna change about the Constitution? If it's going to be unconstitutional in 25 years, it should be unconstitutional today. Finally, he goes on to say, \"'The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, \"'not only because those classifications \"'can harm favored races \"'or are based on illegitimate motives, \"'but also because every time the government \"'places citizens on racial registers \"'and makes race relevant to the provision \"'of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.'\" I encourage you to think about it. Are you more on the side of Justice Powell or Sandra Day O'Connor where race is a legitimate factor in admissions, especially if it's in service to diversity, which is considered a benefit for an educational community?"}, {"video_title": "Affirmative action   Civil liberties and civil rights   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If it's going to be unconstitutional in 25 years, it should be unconstitutional today. Finally, he goes on to say, \"'The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, \"'not only because those classifications \"'can harm favored races \"'or are based on illegitimate motives, \"'but also because every time the government \"'places citizens on racial registers \"'and makes race relevant to the provision \"'of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.'\" I encourage you to think about it. Are you more on the side of Justice Powell or Sandra Day O'Connor where race is a legitimate factor in admissions, especially if it's in service to diversity, which is considered a benefit for an educational community? Or are you more on the side of Justice Thomas and Proposition 209 in California, saying that, look, we need to be racially blind? The 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, says that we should be a racially blind country and that every time we try to involve race, it might do more harm than good. You decide."}, {"video_title": "Technology and presidential communication   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So, cameras and shows are gonna be interested in talking to you and hearing what you have to say. Now, this has always been the case for presidents. If they wanted to publish an editorial in a newspaper back in the 1790s, they could have done that. But one major advantage that presidents have today is advances in communication technology. And by that, I mean not only the wealth of media choices that are out there in terms of channels and methods of distribution like YouTube, but also social media like Facebook or Twitter. So, why would presidents be interested in using social media in the first place? Well, check out this graph from the Pew Research Center that shows how much the following of politicians has grown in just four years from 2010 to 2014."}, {"video_title": "Technology and presidential communication   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But one major advantage that presidents have today is advances in communication technology. And by that, I mean not only the wealth of media choices that are out there in terms of channels and methods of distribution like YouTube, but also social media like Facebook or Twitter. So, why would presidents be interested in using social media in the first place? Well, check out this graph from the Pew Research Center that shows how much the following of politicians has grown in just four years from 2010 to 2014. You can see that it doesn't matter how old someone is or whether they're Republican or Democrat, across the board, the percent of registered voters who follow candidates for office has doubled in just this short time. So, what does this mean for the president in particular? Well, one thing it does is make it much easier for the president to do something called going public."}, {"video_title": "Technology and presidential communication   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, check out this graph from the Pew Research Center that shows how much the following of politicians has grown in just four years from 2010 to 2014. You can see that it doesn't matter how old someone is or whether they're Republican or Democrat, across the board, the percent of registered voters who follow candidates for office has doubled in just this short time. So, what does this mean for the president in particular? Well, one thing it does is make it much easier for the president to do something called going public. And going public is when the president goes directly to the electorate, speaks directly to the people to gain support for their policies. So, they're bypassing members of Congress and speaking directly to the electorate to try to drum up support for whatever policy they'd like to enact. And the range of diverse media outlets that serve different demographics means that it's pretty easy for the president to speak directly to whichever demographic he or she is interested in talking to."}, {"video_title": "Technology and presidential communication   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, one thing it does is make it much easier for the president to do something called going public. And going public is when the president goes directly to the electorate, speaks directly to the people to gain support for their policies. So, they're bypassing members of Congress and speaking directly to the electorate to try to drum up support for whatever policy they'd like to enact. And the range of diverse media outlets that serve different demographics means that it's pretty easy for the president to speak directly to whichever demographic he or she is interested in talking to. So, they can craft a message that appeals to one specific demographic. For example, let's take a look at an appearance that former President Barack Obama made on the internet show Between Two Ferns. Have you heard of the Affordable Care Act?"}, {"video_title": "Technology and presidential communication   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the range of diverse media outlets that serve different demographics means that it's pretty easy for the president to speak directly to whichever demographic he or she is interested in talking to. So, they can craft a message that appeals to one specific demographic. For example, let's take a look at an appearance that former President Barack Obama made on the internet show Between Two Ferns. Have you heard of the Affordable Care Act? Oh yeah, I heard about that. That's the thing that doesn't work. Why don't you get the guy that created the Zune to make your website?"}, {"video_title": "Technology and presidential communication   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Have you heard of the Affordable Care Act? Oh yeah, I heard about that. That's the thing that doesn't work. Why don't you get the guy that created the Zune to make your website? Healthcare.gov works great now. And millions of Americans have already gotten health insurance plans. And what we want is for people to know that you can get affordable healthcare."}, {"video_title": "Technology and presidential communication   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Why don't you get the guy that created the Zune to make your website? Healthcare.gov works great now. And millions of Americans have already gotten health insurance plans. And what we want is for people to know that you can get affordable healthcare. And most young Americans right now, they're not covered. And the truth is, is that they can get coverage all for what it costs you to pay your cell phone bill. So, you'll notice that in that clip, Obama was speaking directly to young people, going through a show that young people were likely to watch, and even using language that was geared toward young people, like saying that healthcare costs about as much as your cell phone bill, all in service of trying to promote the policy of the Affordable Care Act."}, {"video_title": "Technology and presidential communication   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what we want is for people to know that you can get affordable healthcare. And most young Americans right now, they're not covered. And the truth is, is that they can get coverage all for what it costs you to pay your cell phone bill. So, you'll notice that in that clip, Obama was speaking directly to young people, going through a show that young people were likely to watch, and even using language that was geared toward young people, like saying that healthcare costs about as much as your cell phone bill, all in service of trying to promote the policy of the Affordable Care Act. Barack Obama was also the first president to create an official presidential Twitter handle, at POTUS, President of the United States, which then, in the transfer of power from the Obama administration to the Trump administration, now is the official Twitter handle of Donald Trump. And Trump is particularly well known for using Twitter to reach a broad audience. Check out this tweet from July 5th, 2018, which talks about Trump's position on immigration laws."}, {"video_title": "Technology and presidential communication   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So, you'll notice that in that clip, Obama was speaking directly to young people, going through a show that young people were likely to watch, and even using language that was geared toward young people, like saying that healthcare costs about as much as your cell phone bill, all in service of trying to promote the policy of the Affordable Care Act. Barack Obama was also the first president to create an official presidential Twitter handle, at POTUS, President of the United States, which then, in the transfer of power from the Obama administration to the Trump administration, now is the official Twitter handle of Donald Trump. And Trump is particularly well known for using Twitter to reach a broad audience. Check out this tweet from July 5th, 2018, which talks about Trump's position on immigration laws. So, let's read these. Congress must pass smart, fast, and reasonable immigration laws now. Law enforcement at the border is doing a great job, but the laws they are forced to work with are insane."}, {"video_title": "Technology and presidential communication   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Check out this tweet from July 5th, 2018, which talks about Trump's position on immigration laws. So, let's read these. Congress must pass smart, fast, and reasonable immigration laws now. Law enforcement at the border is doing a great job, but the laws they are forced to work with are insane. When people with or without children enter our country, they must be told to leave without our country being forced to endure a long and costly trial. Tell the people out, and they must leave, just as they would if they were standing on your front lawn. Hiring thousands of judges does not work and is not acceptable."}, {"video_title": "Technology and presidential communication   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Law enforcement at the border is doing a great job, but the laws they are forced to work with are insane. When people with or without children enter our country, they must be told to leave without our country being forced to endure a long and costly trial. Tell the people out, and they must leave, just as they would if they were standing on your front lawn. Hiring thousands of judges does not work and is not acceptable. Only country in the world that does this. So, you can see what Trump is doing here is speaking directly to the people and asking them to influence Congress in support of his policy stance. So, using Twitter allows Trump to speak to more than 50 million followers, and it allows the president to have a rapid response to events as they unfold."}, {"video_title": "The 19th Amendment and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We're nearing the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which says that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. This was the pivotal amendment that guaranteed the right to vote for women. But as we've learned so far, having citizenship and having the right to vote don't necessarily go hand in hand. So let's zoom out a bit from the 19th Amendment and take a look at citizenship rights for women both before and after the amendment. Back in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was passed, it guaranteed citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States. White women had been considered citizens since the country's founding, but now, after the 14th Amendment, women of color born on U.S. soil were included among the ranks of citizens. But again, this didn't mean that women had the right to vote."}, {"video_title": "The 19th Amendment and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's zoom out a bit from the 19th Amendment and take a look at citizenship rights for women both before and after the amendment. Back in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was passed, it guaranteed citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States. White women had been considered citizens since the country's founding, but now, after the 14th Amendment, women of color born on U.S. soil were included among the ranks of citizens. But again, this didn't mean that women had the right to vote. In 1872, Virginia Minor, a resident of Missouri, attempted to register to vote and was denied. Her husband sued for them both because women couldn't bring suit in Missouri at the time. The Minors argued that the 14th Amendment guaranteed Virginia's right to vote, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court in 1875."}, {"video_title": "The 19th Amendment and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But again, this didn't mean that women had the right to vote. In 1872, Virginia Minor, a resident of Missouri, attempted to register to vote and was denied. Her husband sued for them both because women couldn't bring suit in Missouri at the time. The Minors argued that the 14th Amendment guaranteed Virginia's right to vote, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court in 1875. In Minor v. Hapersett, Hapersett was the name of the registrar who wouldn't let Virginia register to vote, the court issued the ruling that the right to vote was not one of the constitutionally protected rights of citizenship. This meant that for women to get the right to vote, they would either have to get individual states to permit women to vote or persuade Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution. Women suffragists pursued both of those strategies."}, {"video_title": "The 19th Amendment and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Minors argued that the 14th Amendment guaranteed Virginia's right to vote, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court in 1875. In Minor v. Hapersett, Hapersett was the name of the registrar who wouldn't let Virginia register to vote, the court issued the ruling that the right to vote was not one of the constitutionally protected rights of citizenship. This meant that for women to get the right to vote, they would either have to get individual states to permit women to vote or persuade Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution. Women suffragists pursued both of those strategies. And by 1919, when Congress approved the 19th Amendment, women had full suffrage in 15 states and partial suffrage, meaning that they could vote in some types of elections, but not others, in 20 more states. The 19th Amendment overturned Minor v. Hapersett and ensured that women had the right to vote in every state. However, there were still ways that women's citizenship was limited."}, {"video_title": "The 19th Amendment and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Women suffragists pursued both of those strategies. And by 1919, when Congress approved the 19th Amendment, women had full suffrage in 15 states and partial suffrage, meaning that they could vote in some types of elections, but not others, in 20 more states. The 19th Amendment overturned Minor v. Hapersett and ensured that women had the right to vote in every state. However, there were still ways that women's citizenship was limited. For one thing, a woman's citizenship status was very much tied up with her husband's. In the early 20th century, if an American woman married a non-citizen, she lost her U.S. citizenship. The reverse was not true if an American man married a non-citizen, he remained a citizen."}, {"video_title": "The 19th Amendment and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "However, there were still ways that women's citizenship was limited. For one thing, a woman's citizenship status was very much tied up with her husband's. In the early 20th century, if an American woman married a non-citizen, she lost her U.S. citizenship. The reverse was not true if an American man married a non-citizen, he remained a citizen. This was a relic of the legal doctrine of coverture, that a woman's legal rights were swallowed up by her husband's when she got married. In 1922, shortly after the 19th Amendment, the Cable Act started the process of disentangling a woman's citizenship status from that of her husband. But it wasn't until 1934 that all of the exceptions and loopholes were closed."}, {"video_title": "The 19th Amendment and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The reverse was not true if an American man married a non-citizen, he remained a citizen. This was a relic of the legal doctrine of coverture, that a woman's legal rights were swallowed up by her husband's when she got married. In 1922, shortly after the 19th Amendment, the Cable Act started the process of disentangling a woman's citizenship status from that of her husband. But it wasn't until 1934 that all of the exceptions and loopholes were closed. Jury service was another arena where women's citizenship rights took some time to catch up to men's. Some states tied jury service to voting, so that when women got the right to vote, they became eligible to serve as jurors. But that wasn't the case in every state."}, {"video_title": "The 19th Amendment and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it wasn't until 1934 that all of the exceptions and loopholes were closed. Jury service was another arena where women's citizenship rights took some time to catch up to men's. Some states tied jury service to voting, so that when women got the right to vote, they became eligible to serve as jurors. But that wasn't the case in every state. So even after the 19th Amendment, women had to fight for the right to sit on juries in more than 30 states. We tend to think of jury duty as something to get out of, if at all possible, but it's really an incredibly important aspect of citizenship. It ensures that people who are accused of a crime are tried by a jury of their peers."}, {"video_title": "The 19th Amendment and citizenship   Citizenship   High school civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But that wasn't the case in every state. So even after the 19th Amendment, women had to fight for the right to sit on juries in more than 30 states. We tend to think of jury duty as something to get out of, if at all possible, but it's really an incredibly important aspect of citizenship. It ensures that people who are accused of a crime are tried by a jury of their peers. Not until 1968 did every state require women to sit on juries. So how important do you think the 19th Amendment was in gaining citizenship rights for women? What did it change, and what didn't it change?"}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Article Four lays out the nuts and bolts of how federalism, the system of shared governance between states and the federal government, works in practice. Article Four has four sections. The first two, the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, talk about how states will treat each other's citizens as well as they treat the citizens of their own states. Then the third section is an Admissions Clause, discussing how new states will be added to the union. And the fourth section is the Guarantee Clause, which guarantees every state in the union a Republican form of government. To learn more about Article Four, I sought out the help of two experts. Erin Hawley is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Missouri."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then the third section is an Admissions Clause, discussing how new states will be added to the union. And the fourth section is the Guarantee Clause, which guarantees every state in the union a Republican form of government. To learn more about Article Four, I sought out the help of two experts. Erin Hawley is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Missouri. Her scholarship focuses on the federal courts, and she teaches constitutional litigation, tax policy, and agricultural law. Professor Gabriel Chin is the Director of Clinical Legal Education at the UC Davis School of Law. He's a teacher and scholar of immigration law, criminal procedure, and race and law."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Erin Hawley is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Missouri. Her scholarship focuses on the federal courts, and she teaches constitutional litigation, tax policy, and agricultural law. Professor Gabriel Chin is the Director of Clinical Legal Education at the UC Davis School of Law. He's a teacher and scholar of immigration law, criminal procedure, and race and law. So Professor Hawley, can you take us a little bit through why the framers included Article Four? What was its purpose? The founders of the Constitution were very concerned that the federal government be one of limited powers."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's a teacher and scholar of immigration law, criminal procedure, and race and law. So Professor Hawley, can you take us a little bit through why the framers included Article Four? What was its purpose? The founders of the Constitution were very concerned that the federal government be one of limited powers. And because of that, they saw the states as having an active and critical role in placing a check on the federal government. So we've got the three branches and their own checks and balances, and then we've got the federal government and the state government also playing a role in checking and balancing each other. They wanted to establish a strong central government, but also to ensure that it didn't have too much power, and the states were critical to this effort."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The founders of the Constitution were very concerned that the federal government be one of limited powers. And because of that, they saw the states as having an active and critical role in placing a check on the federal government. So we've got the three branches and their own checks and balances, and then we've got the federal government and the state government also playing a role in checking and balancing each other. They wanted to establish a strong central government, but also to ensure that it didn't have too much power, and the states were critical to this effort. Also, they very much wanted the states to act collectively, not individually. As you'll recall, the states had not been doing so well under the loose articles of the Confederation. They'd sort of been going it alone on critical issues like trade and defense as to the detriment of the union."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They wanted to establish a strong central government, but also to ensure that it didn't have too much power, and the states were critical to this effort. Also, they very much wanted the states to act collectively, not individually. As you'll recall, the states had not been doing so well under the loose articles of the Confederation. They'd sort of been going it alone on critical issues like trade and defense as to the detriment of the union. So Article Four is also sort of key to making sure that the states act sort of as a unified whole rather than going it alone. It's one country made up of diverse states. And if you prefer the way things are done in Nevada, you can move there."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They'd sort of been going it alone on critical issues like trade and defense as to the detriment of the union. So Article Four is also sort of key to making sure that the states act sort of as a unified whole rather than going it alone. It's one country made up of diverse states. And if you prefer the way things are done in Nevada, you can move there. And if you think that some other state has a better set of answers to the problems of modern life, you can move. What the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause are designed to do is to facilitate transactions, to facilitate moving, to facilitate communications and commerce and trade and travel among the states. But that doesn't mean that what's going on in each of the states can't be very, very different."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if you prefer the way things are done in Nevada, you can move there. And if you think that some other state has a better set of answers to the problems of modern life, you can move. What the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause are designed to do is to facilitate transactions, to facilitate moving, to facilitate communications and commerce and trade and travel among the states. But that doesn't mean that what's going on in each of the states can't be very, very different. We often think of checks and balances as being something that was designed to be kind of horizontal, that the legislature and the executive branch and the judicial branch kind of all at the same level checking each other. But there's also kind of this vertical checks and balances happening too between the power of the federal government, the power of the states and the power of the local governments. Absolutely."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But that doesn't mean that what's going on in each of the states can't be very, very different. We often think of checks and balances as being something that was designed to be kind of horizontal, that the legislature and the executive branch and the judicial branch kind of all at the same level checking each other. But there's also kind of this vertical checks and balances happening too between the power of the federal government, the power of the states and the power of the local governments. Absolutely. So we've got the three branches and their checks and balances, but we also have a strong central government that's checked in large part by strong independent sovereign governments in each of the 50 states. And these states traditionally have what are known as police powers. So they have a lot of inherent authority to govern the people in those states, subject to federal law."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Absolutely. So we've got the three branches and their checks and balances, but we also have a strong central government that's checked in large part by strong independent sovereign governments in each of the 50 states. And these states traditionally have what are known as police powers. So they have a lot of inherent authority to govern the people in those states, subject to federal law. But it really does sort of place a check on federal authority. And I think this is precisely what the framers wanted because they did want a strong government, but they also were very much of the view that states were important, that their own states were important and they didn't want to lose that in the new constitution and new federal government. There are four sections in Article IV and the first section deals with full faith and credit."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they have a lot of inherent authority to govern the people in those states, subject to federal law. But it really does sort of place a check on federal authority. And I think this is precisely what the framers wanted because they did want a strong government, but they also were very much of the view that states were important, that their own states were important and they didn't want to lose that in the new constitution and new federal government. There are four sections in Article IV and the first section deals with full faith and credit. It says full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. So what does full faith and credit actually mean? It's designed to make in a certain sense, all of the states of the United States part of a single system."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There are four sections in Article IV and the first section deals with full faith and credit. It says full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. So what does full faith and credit actually mean? It's designed to make in a certain sense, all of the states of the United States part of a single system. And so full faith and credit means that a court judgment, for example, in one state will be recognized in every state. So if you have a valid judgment in New York, for example, and you move to California, the California courts are required to give effect to that judgment, to that state court judgment, so long as it was validly issued. There was a federal statute known as the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA that was passed under President Clinton."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's designed to make in a certain sense, all of the states of the United States part of a single system. And so full faith and credit means that a court judgment, for example, in one state will be recognized in every state. So if you have a valid judgment in New York, for example, and you move to California, the California courts are required to give effect to that judgment, to that state court judgment, so long as it was validly issued. There was a federal statute known as the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA that was passed under President Clinton. And recently the Supreme Court struck that down as unconstitutional. So now under full faith and credit, if you're married in one state, you're married in another state as well. You can see the kinds of problems that would exist if states didn't honor the legal decisions that were made by other states, such as who's married or who's divorced or who owns a particular piece of property or whether a particular child is going to be in the custody of one parent rather than another."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There was a federal statute known as the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA that was passed under President Clinton. And recently the Supreme Court struck that down as unconstitutional. So now under full faith and credit, if you're married in one state, you're married in another state as well. You can see the kinds of problems that would exist if states didn't honor the legal decisions that were made by other states, such as who's married or who's divorced or who owns a particular piece of property or whether a particular child is going to be in the custody of one parent rather than another. And the full faith and credit clause is designed to say, in order for our system to work as a unified whole, while it's true that the courts of Georgia are distinct from the courts of New York, et cetera, they're separate systems, but they have to treat the work that each other does with respect. If we move on to section two, this says that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. So what are these privileges and immunities?"}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You can see the kinds of problems that would exist if states didn't honor the legal decisions that were made by other states, such as who's married or who's divorced or who owns a particular piece of property or whether a particular child is going to be in the custody of one parent rather than another. And the full faith and credit clause is designed to say, in order for our system to work as a unified whole, while it's true that the courts of Georgia are distinct from the courts of New York, et cetera, they're separate systems, but they have to treat the work that each other does with respect. If we move on to section two, this says that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. So what are these privileges and immunities? So the privileges and immunities clause has been one that's subject to a number of sort of debate in the courts, in the academic literature. But basically privileges and immunities have been construed to be those sorts of things that would go with citizenship. So the right to travel, for example, is a privilege and immunity, those sorts of things."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what are these privileges and immunities? So the privileges and immunities clause has been one that's subject to a number of sort of debate in the courts, in the academic literature. But basically privileges and immunities have been construed to be those sorts of things that would go with citizenship. So the right to travel, for example, is a privilege and immunity, those sorts of things. Occasionally in American history, there have been moments where states didn't wanna let citizens of other states come through. So during the depression, there was an effort by some states to limit the migration of people from out of state to in state. And the Supreme Court said, that's not permissible."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the right to travel, for example, is a privilege and immunity, those sorts of things. Occasionally in American history, there have been moments where states didn't wanna let citizens of other states come through. So during the depression, there was an effort by some states to limit the migration of people from out of state to in state. And the Supreme Court said, that's not permissible. It also protects the right to travel. In 1999, the Supreme Court dealt with a case called Sines versus Roe. And what that case was about is that California had relatively generous welfare benefits."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the Supreme Court said, that's not permissible. It also protects the right to travel. In 1999, the Supreme Court dealt with a case called Sines versus Roe. And what that case was about is that California had relatively generous welfare benefits. And California wanted to set up its law in such a way that it wouldn't encourage people from other states to move to California just to get the welfare benefits. And so what they did is they said that if you don't live in California, if you're moving from out of state and you apply for welfare benefits, then we're gonna give you the welfare benefits that you would have gotten in your state for the first year. We're not gonna give you the higher California benefits."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what that case was about is that California had relatively generous welfare benefits. And California wanted to set up its law in such a way that it wouldn't encourage people from other states to move to California just to get the welfare benefits. And so what they did is they said that if you don't live in California, if you're moving from out of state and you apply for welfare benefits, then we're gonna give you the welfare benefits that you would have gotten in your state for the first year. We're not gonna give you the higher California benefits. We're gonna give you whatever you would have gotten where you came from. That's unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court said that violates the privileges and immunities clause where one country, one nation, people are allowed to cross the borders whenever they want."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We're not gonna give you the higher California benefits. We're gonna give you whatever you would have gotten where you came from. That's unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court said that violates the privileges and immunities clause where one country, one nation, people are allowed to cross the borders whenever they want. Interesting, but there's the second part of it that says no person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from service or labor. So what is that all about? So that is one of the most unfortunate, probably the most unfortunate clauses in our constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the Supreme Court said that violates the privileges and immunities clause where one country, one nation, people are allowed to cross the borders whenever they want. Interesting, but there's the second part of it that says no person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from service or labor. So what is that all about? So that is one of the most unfortunate, probably the most unfortunate clauses in our constitution. It's known as the Fugitive Slave Clause. And that title is pretty descriptive. So if you have a slave who is validly owned, as it were in those days, under one state's law and that person escaped to a free state, this clause gave the owner the right to reclaim that slave and put them back into sort of ownership in their own state."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that is one of the most unfortunate, probably the most unfortunate clauses in our constitution. It's known as the Fugitive Slave Clause. And that title is pretty descriptive. So if you have a slave who is validly owned, as it were in those days, under one state's law and that person escaped to a free state, this clause gave the owner the right to reclaim that slave and put them back into sort of ownership in their own state. It is a sneaky way of talking about slavery. And this compromise with slavery was necessary to create the United States. Slavery, the word, isn't used in the constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if you have a slave who is validly owned, as it were in those days, under one state's law and that person escaped to a free state, this clause gave the owner the right to reclaim that slave and put them back into sort of ownership in their own state. It is a sneaky way of talking about slavery. And this compromise with slavery was necessary to create the United States. Slavery, the word, isn't used in the constitution. They only use these euphemisms, these sort of complicated circumlocutions. And there's an argument that there's a reason for that. And the reason for that is that a lot of the framers of the constitution didn't support slavery, opposed slavery."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Slavery, the word, isn't used in the constitution. They only use these euphemisms, these sort of complicated circumlocutions. And there's an argument that there's a reason for that. And the reason for that is that a lot of the framers of the constitution didn't support slavery, opposed slavery. They did think that it was important to have a United States and to have a constitution. So they wanted to do what was necessary to achieve that, but they did the absolute minimum. And they did it in such a way that consciously doesn't recognize and legitimize the institution of slavery."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the reason for that is that a lot of the framers of the constitution didn't support slavery, opposed slavery. They did think that it was important to have a United States and to have a constitution. So they wanted to do what was necessary to achieve that, but they did the absolute minimum. And they did it in such a way that consciously doesn't recognize and legitimize the institution of slavery. All right, so then we get into new states and territories. So I think it was very forward-looking of the framers to recognize that new states might wanna join the union and then to provide a process for that. So can you tell us a little bit about what that process was like?"}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they did it in such a way that consciously doesn't recognize and legitimize the institution of slavery. All right, so then we get into new states and territories. So I think it was very forward-looking of the framers to recognize that new states might wanna join the union and then to provide a process for that. So can you tell us a little bit about what that process was like? So Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 provides the process for admitting new states. Again, it recognizes that new states might want to join the union. And it gives a wide latitude to Congress for admitting new states."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So can you tell us a little bit about what that process was like? So Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 provides the process for admitting new states. Again, it recognizes that new states might want to join the union. And it gives a wide latitude to Congress for admitting new states. So basically the process was that a territory would indicate to the Congress that it wished to become a state. Then they would submit a constitution and Congress would approve the new state. But the constitution itself in Article IV places some limitations on that."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it gives a wide latitude to Congress for admitting new states. So basically the process was that a territory would indicate to the Congress that it wished to become a state. Then they would submit a constitution and Congress would approve the new state. But the constitution itself in Article IV places some limitations on that. Some of the Eastern states were concerned that the large Western territories might become too influential. So they had a couple of provisions that no new state could be created out of an old state, nor could parts of states be combined to form a new state unless there was consent from all of the involved states. And it's not so clear that purchase of territory from foreign governments was a power that was granted in the constitution to anyone."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the constitution itself in Article IV places some limitations on that. Some of the Eastern states were concerned that the large Western territories might become too influential. So they had a couple of provisions that no new state could be created out of an old state, nor could parts of states be combined to form a new state unless there was consent from all of the involved states. And it's not so clear that purchase of territory from foreign governments was a power that was granted in the constitution to anyone. Thomas Jefferson, who was the president at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, had doubts that the Louisiana Purchase was constitutional. He thought that it was a great idea to purchase all that land from France, but he thought that it would require a constitutional amendment for the United States to have that power. This is different from Texas joining the union."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's not so clear that purchase of territory from foreign governments was a power that was granted in the constitution to anyone. Thomas Jefferson, who was the president at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, had doubts that the Louisiana Purchase was constitutional. He thought that it was a great idea to purchase all that land from France, but he thought that it would require a constitutional amendment for the United States to have that power. This is different from Texas joining the union. But the House and the Senate didn't have the same qualms that President Jefferson did. And so they agreed to approve the Louisiana Purchase and to fund it. When the bill got to Thomas Jefferson's desk, he signed it."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This is different from Texas joining the union. But the House and the Senate didn't have the same qualms that President Jefferson did. And so they agreed to approve the Louisiana Purchase and to fund it. When the bill got to Thomas Jefferson's desk, he signed it. Moving on to Section IV, there's this promise here that the federal government will guarantee every state a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion or domestic violence. What does this mean? So we see here in Article IV, the end of Article IV, a really sort of famous and important promise to each of the individual states."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When the bill got to Thomas Jefferson's desk, he signed it. Moving on to Section IV, there's this promise here that the federal government will guarantee every state a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion or domestic violence. What does this mean? So we see here in Article IV, the end of Article IV, a really sort of famous and important promise to each of the individual states. The federal government is promising to basically aid them in keeping a Republican form of government. As we'll remember, Benjamin Franklin famously said, we've given you a republic if you can keep it. So when we talk about invasion, when Section IV talks about invasion, it's pretty clear that what they're talking about is invasion by some hostile state."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So we see here in Article IV, the end of Article IV, a really sort of famous and important promise to each of the individual states. The federal government is promising to basically aid them in keeping a Republican form of government. As we'll remember, Benjamin Franklin famously said, we've given you a republic if you can keep it. So when we talk about invasion, when Section IV talks about invasion, it's pretty clear that what they're talking about is invasion by some hostile state. And of course, during this period, there was continuing conflict with England. And the idea is that if New York or South Carolina gets invaded by England, that's not just that particular state's problem, it's the nation's problem. And the national government has an obligation to protect against invasion."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So when we talk about invasion, when Section IV talks about invasion, it's pretty clear that what they're talking about is invasion by some hostile state. And of course, during this period, there was continuing conflict with England. And the idea is that if New York or South Carolina gets invaded by England, that's not just that particular state's problem, it's the nation's problem. And the national government has an obligation to protect against invasion. And I imagine it also prevents someone from, for example, declaring themselves the King of Maryland. The Republican form of government clause does that. It leaves the details to the states."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the national government has an obligation to protect against invasion. And I imagine it also prevents someone from, for example, declaring themselves the King of Maryland. The Republican form of government clause does that. It leaves the details to the states. But the basic idea is that there has to, the concept of Republican government that's embodied in Article IV is majority rule. That even if there were free and fair elections, the state could not choose to have military or hereditary government. So even if everybody in California got together and said, you know, what we really need is a good family that generation after generation will lead us and they will be the kings and queens of California."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It leaves the details to the states. But the basic idea is that there has to, the concept of Republican government that's embodied in Article IV is majority rule. That even if there were free and fair elections, the state could not choose to have military or hereditary government. So even if everybody in California got together and said, you know, what we really need is a good family that generation after generation will lead us and they will be the kings and queens of California. And this is what we want. And so we're going to amend our constitution to provide for hereditary leadership in our state. And we're going to find somebody great and this is what we want to do."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So even if everybody in California got together and said, you know, what we really need is a good family that generation after generation will lead us and they will be the kings and queens of California. And this is what we want. And so we're going to amend our constitution to provide for hereditary leadership in our state. And we're going to find somebody great and this is what we want to do. Article IV would say, we can't choose to do that even through democratic means. So as we've learned, Article IV requires states to give full faith and credit to the legal proceedings of other states and to treat the citizens of other states as well as they treat their own citizens. It provides a process for adding new states into the mix and guarantees a Republican form of government to the citizens of all the states."}, {"video_title": "Article IV of the Constitution   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And we're going to find somebody great and this is what we want to do. Article IV would say, we can't choose to do that even through democratic means. So as we've learned, Article IV requires states to give full faith and credit to the legal proceedings of other states and to treat the citizens of other states as well as they treat their own citizens. It provides a process for adding new states into the mix and guarantees a Republican form of government to the citizens of all the states. Article IV binds the United States together. So it's not just a collection of independent states, but rather a unified nation. To learn more about Article IV, visit the National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution and Khan Academy's resources on US government and politics."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have the executive branch with the president at the head of the executive branch, and of course, you have the judicial. Now what we're going to focus on in this video is, in previous videos, we've talked about that the executive branch is in charge of running the government, while the legislative branch, they're the folks who either write laws or control the budget. And what we're going to do in this video is dig a little bit deeper in terms of how does Congress have oversight over the executive branch. When we think of the executive branch, we often think of the president or maybe the people who work around the president, but the federal bureaucracy is roughly 2.8 million people, and we talk about that in other videos. And so how do we have oversight over these 2.8 million people? Well, first of all, there is a whole managerial structure within the executive branch, but on top of that, you have the legislative branch having oversight over the executive agencies, over these 2.8 million people. And there's two primary means of this oversight."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When we think of the executive branch, we often think of the president or maybe the people who work around the president, but the federal bureaucracy is roughly 2.8 million people, and we talk about that in other videos. And so how do we have oversight over these 2.8 million people? Well, first of all, there is a whole managerial structure within the executive branch, but on top of that, you have the legislative branch having oversight over the executive agencies, over these 2.8 million people. And there's two primary means of this oversight. The first one is Congress sets the budget. This is often known as power of the purse. And if Congress doesn't like how a certain agency is spending its money, they might reduce the budget there."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there's two primary means of this oversight. The first one is Congress sets the budget. This is often known as power of the purse. And if Congress doesn't like how a certain agency is spending its money, they might reduce the budget there. If they really think that some agency is doing a good job or needs more resources, they might give them more resources in the next budget. The other tool of oversight that Congress has is committee hearings. And we have talked about this in other videos, but this is where the appropriate committee within Congress, it might be within the Senate or the House of Representatives will call in leaders from the executive agency that they are overseeing to ask them questions."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if Congress doesn't like how a certain agency is spending its money, they might reduce the budget there. If they really think that some agency is doing a good job or needs more resources, they might give them more resources in the next budget. The other tool of oversight that Congress has is committee hearings. And we have talked about this in other videos, but this is where the appropriate committee within Congress, it might be within the Senate or the House of Representatives will call in leaders from the executive agency that they are overseeing to ask them questions. Hey, why did this not go as we planned? Or how do you deal with this situation? Or why are you spending more money than we thought you were actually going to spend?"}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And we have talked about this in other videos, but this is where the appropriate committee within Congress, it might be within the Senate or the House of Representatives will call in leaders from the executive agency that they are overseeing to ask them questions. Hey, why did this not go as we planned? Or how do you deal with this situation? Or why are you spending more money than we thought you were actually going to spend? Now, to be clear, this is not always going to work. When we're talking about 2.8 million people, there definitely might be things that go on within these executive agencies that Congress, of course, will not have complete control of with just these two levers, or they might not even know all of the details. But they try to do the committee hearings in order to get a reasonable understanding of what's going on, and then leverage their budgetary powers in order to have some level of oversight."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or why are you spending more money than we thought you were actually going to spend? Now, to be clear, this is not always going to work. When we're talking about 2.8 million people, there definitely might be things that go on within these executive agencies that Congress, of course, will not have complete control of with just these two levers, or they might not even know all of the details. But they try to do the committee hearings in order to get a reasonable understanding of what's going on, and then leverage their budgetary powers in order to have some level of oversight. Now, to get a feel for what this looks like, I'm about to show you an example of a Senate committee hearing. And this is a committee hearing where they brought in some folks from the FBI. And what's interesting about this one, this is not about national security."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But they try to do the committee hearings in order to get a reasonable understanding of what's going on, and then leverage their budgetary powers in order to have some level of oversight. Now, to get a feel for what this looks like, I'm about to show you an example of a Senate committee hearing. And this is a committee hearing where they brought in some folks from the FBI. And what's interesting about this one, this is not about national security. This committee hearing is about relocating or where they put the Federal Bureau of Investigation agency buildings. And you can see that there's definitely a tone of oversight in this video. Mr. Matthews, I'm having a hard time accepting what you're saying here."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And what's interesting about this one, this is not about national security. This committee hearing is about relocating or where they put the Federal Bureau of Investigation agency buildings. And you can see that there's definitely a tone of oversight in this video. Mr. Matthews, I'm having a hard time accepting what you're saying here. So I'm gonna be perfectly blunt about that. You now say a major reason for terminating the original prospectus was that the transfer of the Hoover Building, something that you all wanted and we didn't want. Congress didn't like that idea."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Mr. Matthews, I'm having a hard time accepting what you're saying here. So I'm gonna be perfectly blunt about that. You now say a major reason for terminating the original prospectus was that the transfer of the Hoover Building, something that you all wanted and we didn't want. Congress didn't like that idea. But you said it was something you needed to do to get it done. So now we're supposed to believe that's the reason why you terminate it if it was something that you wanted. Secondly, the consolidation, one of the major reasons for the consolidation on costs is to save rental costs."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Congress didn't like that idea. But you said it was something you needed to do to get it done. So now we're supposed to believe that's the reason why you terminate it if it was something that you wanted. Secondly, the consolidation, one of the major reasons for the consolidation on costs is to save rental costs. That's what you've told us all along, that it's more expensive to have places outside of the central location. And now you're saying it's a wash. Can you understand why I'm having a hard time accepting the information you're presenting? Yes, Senator."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Secondly, the consolidation, one of the major reasons for the consolidation on costs is to save rental costs. That's what you've told us all along, that it's more expensive to have places outside of the central location. And now you're saying it's a wash. Can you understand why I'm having a hard time accepting the information you're presenting? Yes, Senator. So respect to your first question, the issue of- And quickly, cause I heard you, we have your written statement on the transfer of the buildings. I agree with you on the transfer of the building. Didn't make sense."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yes, Senator. So respect to your first question, the issue of- And quickly, cause I heard you, we have your written statement on the transfer of the buildings. I agree with you on the transfer of the building. Didn't make sense. Yes, I would. But you insisted on it. Well, I would say personally, I came here in August and I didn't support it."}, {"video_title": "Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Didn't make sense. Yes, I would. But you insisted on it. Well, I would say personally, I came here in August and I didn't support it. But your agency insisted on it. And the perspectives that they submitted, they insisted that this be part of the deal. Yes, they did."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In your mind, why is the Supreme Court important? Well, the Supreme Court is important for the original founders' reasons. It was like all American institutions. There were ideas the founders had, and then John Marshall, an important justice, created the office by the practice of the office. And it is important because the court is where America's thorniest questions go to be resolved. They haven't been resolved in the executive branch and the legislative branch, and so the court has to take them up. And that is where the court goes back to those first principles."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There were ideas the founders had, and then John Marshall, an important justice, created the office by the practice of the office. And it is important because the court is where America's thorniest questions go to be resolved. They haven't been resolved in the executive branch and the legislative branch, and so the court has to take them up. And that is where the court goes back to those first principles. Again, why we study American history. What exactly was the outline for how the country is supposed to behave, and are we staying within that outline and those series of ideals? It goes back to the very beginning ingredients of America."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that is where the court goes back to those first principles. Again, why we study American history. What exactly was the outline for how the country is supposed to behave, and are we staying within that outline and those series of ideals? It goes back to the very beginning ingredients of America. So the court is a test always of whether what we're doing now is in keeping with what we were supposed to do at the founding of the country. The reason it has become so important recently is that the court ends up doing a lot more than it was ever supposed to do because of weakness in the executive branch and the legislative branch. And so a lot of people are now looking to the court to solve problems that should actually be handled by the people's representatives."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It goes back to the very beginning ingredients of America. So the court is a test always of whether what we're doing now is in keeping with what we were supposed to do at the founding of the country. The reason it has become so important recently is that the court ends up doing a lot more than it was ever supposed to do because of weakness in the executive branch and the legislative branch. And so a lot of people are now looking to the court to solve problems that should actually be handled by the people's representatives. The judges are not elected. They are in there for life at the Supreme Court through the process of the president with advice and consent by the Senate, but they are not elected. And this was supposed to be a republic in which the elected representatives were the ones making the laws."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so a lot of people are now looking to the court to solve problems that should actually be handled by the people's representatives. The judges are not elected. They are in there for life at the Supreme Court through the process of the president with advice and consent by the Senate, but they are not elected. And this was supposed to be a republic in which the elected representatives were the ones making the laws. But that's, we've shifted away from that. And so the court is now making decisions that can affect people's lives for a generation and not be changed as easily as say a piece of legislation, which can be vetoed, amended, superseded by another piece of legislation. It's really permanent changes in the American life."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this was supposed to be a republic in which the elected representatives were the ones making the laws. But that's, we've shifted away from that. And so the court is now making decisions that can affect people's lives for a generation and not be changed as easily as say a piece of legislation, which can be vetoed, amended, superseded by another piece of legislation. It's really permanent changes in the American life. So my understanding is that the Supreme Court should be above politics. To what degree is that actually the case? Well the Supreme Court has had lots of interest."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's really permanent changes in the American life. So my understanding is that the Supreme Court should be above politics. To what degree is that actually the case? Well the Supreme Court has had lots of interest. There have been times where the Supreme Court, when Andrew Jackson was president, he tried to use the Supreme Court to do what he wanted it to do. And Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to change the functioning of the court because it kept knocking down all of his, all the things he wanted to do. We've had moments where there have been these spasms where presidents have tried to get the court to do what they wanted."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well the Supreme Court has had lots of interest. There have been times where the Supreme Court, when Andrew Jackson was president, he tried to use the Supreme Court to do what he wanted it to do. And Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to change the functioning of the court because it kept knocking down all of his, all the things he wanted to do. We've had moments where there have been these spasms where presidents have tried to get the court to do what they wanted. But in general, it was the American tradition that the justices were supposed to be picked if they were of good character and if they were of sound legal mind. If they had views on the matters related to the Constitution that were sort of sound legally. But their politics weren't supposed to be so important."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We've had moments where there have been these spasms where presidents have tried to get the court to do what they wanted. But in general, it was the American tradition that the justices were supposed to be picked if they were of good character and if they were of sound legal mind. If they had views on the matters related to the Constitution that were sort of sound legally. But their politics weren't supposed to be so important. What has happened is, like so much in modern American life, is there has been an intertwining of politics and the legal profession so that now when presidents run for office, they say, elect me so that I can put in our kinds of judges. Which means that the kind of judge you pick helps you with your voters. And if your voters want a very specific kind of ideological judge, then the more ideological of the judge that you pick, the greater your voters will be happy about you and that'll keep you in office."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But their politics weren't supposed to be so important. What has happened is, like so much in modern American life, is there has been an intertwining of politics and the legal profession so that now when presidents run for office, they say, elect me so that I can put in our kinds of judges. Which means that the kind of judge you pick helps you with your voters. And if your voters want a very specific kind of ideological judge, then the more ideological of the judge that you pick, the greater your voters will be happy about you and that'll keep you in office. And that is true of the senators advising and consenting on these decisions and true of the presidents who pick them. Well, that means that the people who go into the office, into the Supreme Court, I should say, end up being more political than in the past. There was a period where when an American president would pick a justice, that justice very often would rule in a way that was totally the opposite of what the members of that president's party wanted."}, {"video_title": "Increased politicization of the Supreme Court   AP US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if your voters want a very specific kind of ideological judge, then the more ideological of the judge that you pick, the greater your voters will be happy about you and that'll keep you in office. And that is true of the senators advising and consenting on these decisions and true of the presidents who pick them. Well, that means that the people who go into the office, into the Supreme Court, I should say, end up being more political than in the past. There was a period where when an American president would pick a justice, that justice very often would rule in a way that was totally the opposite of what the members of that president's party wanted. It happened repeatedly in American life. And that was a symbol, people thought, of the idea that these issues before the court were being weighed on their merits and had nothing to do with the ideological views of the judge weighing them. Now, where you sit on a particular issue is often determined by where you came from politically."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And now we're gonna jump in a little bit deeper. And Jeffrey, one of the things that surprises me about Article Two is for a job as important as the president it's an awfully short amount of text. It is. Article One, defining the powers of Congress, is much longer. The framers were much more concerned about tyranny in Congress than tyranny in the executive. And because there is so much wiggle room in Article Two, presidential practice has been really important. And obviously the most important president in establishing that practice was our first president, George Washington."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Article One, defining the powers of Congress, is much longer. The framers were much more concerned about tyranny in Congress than tyranny in the executive. And because there is so much wiggle room in Article Two, presidential practice has been really important. And obviously the most important president in establishing that practice was our first president, George Washington. And this is this idea that because it was short, it left out a lot of what a president maybe could do or could not do. And that's why our first president, the precedent that he set was really important for how people perceived the powers of the president. Yes, it's a nice homonym."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And obviously the most important president in establishing that practice was our first president, George Washington. And this is this idea that because it was short, it left out a lot of what a president maybe could do or could not do. And that's why our first president, the precedent that he set was really important for how people perceived the powers of the president. Yes, it's a nice homonym. He was both a president and set this important precedent. And because the framers knew that Washington was gonna be the first president, he takes office in 1789, right when the Constitution is ratified, they trusted him to establish these precedents which have been followed to this day. And just a little bit of historical context, the 1776 is the official founding of the country, the Declaration of Independence, the official start of the Revolutionary War, although obviously you have skirmishes before that."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Yes, it's a nice homonym. He was both a president and set this important precedent. And because the framers knew that Washington was gonna be the first president, he takes office in 1789, right when the Constitution is ratified, they trusted him to establish these precedents which have been followed to this day. And just a little bit of historical context, the 1776 is the official founding of the country, the Declaration of Independence, the official start of the Revolutionary War, although obviously you have skirmishes before that. Then we have the Articles of Confederation that get ratified in 1781. It was deemed that it was too weak of a essentially of a confederation. And then our Constitution gets ratified 1789, same year that Washington takes office as our first president."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And just a little bit of historical context, the 1776 is the official founding of the country, the Declaration of Independence, the official start of the Revolutionary War, although obviously you have skirmishes before that. Then we have the Articles of Confederation that get ratified in 1781. It was deemed that it was too weak of a essentially of a confederation. And then our Constitution gets ratified 1789, same year that Washington takes office as our first president. Exactly right. And as soon as he takes office, Washington faces this dilemma that's not answered by the Constitution. And that's, does he recognize the French Revolution who have just killed in guillotine, Louis XIV?"}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then our Constitution gets ratified 1789, same year that Washington takes office as our first president. Exactly right. And as soon as he takes office, Washington faces this dilemma that's not answered by the Constitution. And that's, does he recognize the French Revolution who have just killed in guillotine, Louis XIV? So Washington has these three choices. He can stand by the monarchy and condemn the revolution. He can recognize the French revolutionaries as the rightful government, or he can say, it's not my choice and all of our former treaties are void."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's, does he recognize the French Revolution who have just killed in guillotine, Louis XIV? So Washington has these three choices. He can stand by the monarchy and condemn the revolution. He can recognize the French revolutionaries as the rightful government, or he can say, it's not my choice and all of our former treaties are void. He consults his cabinet, decides to recognize the revolutionaries and that establishes the precedent that presidents now have unilateral power to recognize or de-recognize foreign governments. And that's interesting because when we're looking at section two, which at least talks something about treaties, it says that the president can make treaties, I'll underline this, the president can make treaties provided two thirds of the senators present concur. It talks about ambassadors, but it doesn't talk about the recognition of foreign countries."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He can recognize the French revolutionaries as the rightful government, or he can say, it's not my choice and all of our former treaties are void. He consults his cabinet, decides to recognize the revolutionaries and that establishes the precedent that presidents now have unilateral power to recognize or de-recognize foreign governments. And that's interesting because when we're looking at section two, which at least talks something about treaties, it says that the president can make treaties, I'll underline this, the president can make treaties provided two thirds of the senators present concur. It talks about ambassadors, but it doesn't talk about the recognition of foreign countries. And as you point out, the French Revolution, things started in 1789. As you get into the early 90s, the revolution continues and Washington says, well, do we recognize the government of Louis XVI that helped America during the French Revolution or do we recognize the revolutionaries who seem to have a lot more in common with us in terms of their principles around governments, at least the stated ones. And he decides that, well, it's not written in the Constitution here, but I'm, as president, I can make that decision to recognize the revolutionaries."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It talks about ambassadors, but it doesn't talk about the recognition of foreign countries. And as you point out, the French Revolution, things started in 1789. As you get into the early 90s, the revolution continues and Washington says, well, do we recognize the government of Louis XVI that helped America during the French Revolution or do we recognize the revolutionaries who seem to have a lot more in common with us in terms of their principles around governments, at least the stated ones. And he decides that, well, it's not written in the Constitution here, but I'm, as president, I can make that decision to recognize the revolutionaries. Absolutely. And that leads to another series of important questions, which you just flagged, who exactly gets to negotiate the treaties? And Washington has soon after the French revolutionary recognition, he wants to negotiate a treaty with Britain."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he decides that, well, it's not written in the Constitution here, but I'm, as president, I can make that decision to recognize the revolutionaries. Absolutely. And that leads to another series of important questions, which you just flagged, who exactly gets to negotiate the treaties? And Washington has soon after the French revolutionary recognition, he wants to negotiate a treaty with Britain. It's called the Jay Treaty. So he secretly sends Gouverneur Morris, who's the framer who's most responsible for drafting the preamble to the Constitution as an unofficial emissary or negotiator to Britain. And they negotiate the treaty and then Washington designates John Jay as the envoy."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Washington has soon after the French revolutionary recognition, he wants to negotiate a treaty with Britain. It's called the Jay Treaty. So he secretly sends Gouverneur Morris, who's the framer who's most responsible for drafting the preamble to the Constitution as an unofficial emissary or negotiator to Britain. And they negotiate the treaty and then Washington designates John Jay as the envoy. The Senate doesn't endorse the diplomatic mission. Jay is getting his order straight from Washington. After the deal is reached, then Congress, after the fact, approves of Washington's diplomatic entrepreneurship."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they negotiate the treaty and then Washington designates John Jay as the envoy. The Senate doesn't endorse the diplomatic mission. Jay is getting his order straight from Washington. After the deal is reached, then Congress, after the fact, approves of Washington's diplomatic entrepreneurship. So this establishes the really important precedent that the president can send emissaries to negotiate treaties, which are approved by Congress after the fact. And that president is seized on by President Thomas Jefferson, who negotiated for the really important purchase of the Louisiana Territory on the spot without congressional approval and gets Senate approval after the fact. Famously negotiated with Napoleon Bonaparte because he frankly, his Navy had been destroyed at Trafalgar."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "After the deal is reached, then Congress, after the fact, approves of Washington's diplomatic entrepreneurship. So this establishes the really important precedent that the president can send emissaries to negotiate treaties, which are approved by Congress after the fact. And that president is seized on by President Thomas Jefferson, who negotiated for the really important purchase of the Louisiana Territory on the spot without congressional approval and gets Senate approval after the fact. Famously negotiated with Napoleon Bonaparte because he frankly, his Navy had been destroyed at Trafalgar. So he was in no position to protect something halfway across the world. And this drove Jefferson's critics crazy because Jefferson is this big proponent before he becomes president of limited presidential authority and he becomes president and he seems to expand it by seizing on this treaty negotiation power that isn't explicitly in the Constitution and hugely increases the land mass of the United States. And the importance of these precedents, just to go back to section two, it does say, he shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two thirds of the senators present concur."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Famously negotiated with Napoleon Bonaparte because he frankly, his Navy had been destroyed at Trafalgar. So he was in no position to protect something halfway across the world. And this drove Jefferson's critics crazy because Jefferson is this big proponent before he becomes president of limited presidential authority and he becomes president and he seems to expand it by seizing on this treaty negotiation power that isn't explicitly in the Constitution and hugely increases the land mass of the United States. And the importance of these precedents, just to go back to section two, it does say, he shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two thirds of the senators present concur. And your point is, is that the way it's written in section two, it's not clear whether you need the advice and consent beforehand or whether they just kind of approve after the fact. And Washington and his term was from 1789 until 1797, he assumed that no, I should be able to go and very nimbly negotiate these things without having to involve the entire Senate. And once it's negotiated, I need to go to them and get them to approve it."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the importance of these precedents, just to go back to section two, it does say, he shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two thirds of the senators present concur. And your point is, is that the way it's written in section two, it's not clear whether you need the advice and consent beforehand or whether they just kind of approve after the fact. And Washington and his term was from 1789 until 1797, he assumed that no, I should be able to go and very nimbly negotiate these things without having to involve the entire Senate. And once it's negotiated, I need to go to them and get them to approve it. And Jefferson, who was in power from 1801 to 1809, kind of further reinforced that precedent. So hey, I'm just gonna negotiate this thing and then get it approved. That's exactly right."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And once it's negotiated, I need to go to them and get them to approve it. And Jefferson, who was in power from 1801 to 1809, kind of further reinforced that precedent. So hey, I'm just gonna negotiate this thing and then get it approved. That's exactly right. And that allows Jefferson when he gets approval for the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, to get the Senate to approve the treaty and to persuade the house to finance the legal structure for the new territory. He probably couldn't have done that if he hadn't worked out the negotiating details in advance. And another element that the second paragraph here of section two talks about is, with the advice and consent of the Senate, this is talked about a lot."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's exactly right. And that allows Jefferson when he gets approval for the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, to get the Senate to approve the treaty and to persuade the house to finance the legal structure for the new territory. He probably couldn't have done that if he hadn't worked out the negotiating details in advance. And another element that the second paragraph here of section two talks about is, with the advice and consent of the Senate, this is talked about a lot. And the constitution tries to set up the Senate as where the president goes to test his ideas, get some thinking. But Washington also decides that, well, it's not that efficient to talking to all these elected officials. Maybe I'll set my own body that I talk to more frequently."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And another element that the second paragraph here of section two talks about is, with the advice and consent of the Senate, this is talked about a lot. And the constitution tries to set up the Senate as where the president goes to test his ideas, get some thinking. But Washington also decides that, well, it's not that efficient to talking to all these elected officials. Maybe I'll set my own body that I talk to more frequently. That's exactly right. As we talked about before, section three of the constitution seems to say that the president can consult Congress for advice in all sorts of situations. He can convene both houses or he can adjourn them and so forth."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe I'll set my own body that I talk to more frequently. That's exactly right. As we talked about before, section three of the constitution seems to say that the president can consult Congress for advice in all sorts of situations. He can convene both houses or he can adjourn them and so forth. But Washington established this precedent of using a cabinet. And that's a term that doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution. Despite the part of the constitution that also allows the president to seek the opinions of the various officers, Washington informally sought his cabinet's advice."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He can convene both houses or he can adjourn them and so forth. But Washington established this precedent of using a cabinet. And that's a term that doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution. Despite the part of the constitution that also allows the president to seek the opinions of the various officers, Washington informally sought his cabinet's advice. And today, although the cabinet meets less frequently than it did before, the presidential cabinet or cabinet meetings is established as a precedent in the executive branch. And then the last piece that, this section two also talks about the ability of the president to make appointments, anything from ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, judges, supreme court, and other officers in the United States. And it also talks about inferior officers, which are more junior officers, that some of the presidents can do that without getting approved by Congress."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Despite the part of the constitution that also allows the president to seek the opinions of the various officers, Washington informally sought his cabinet's advice. And today, although the cabinet meets less frequently than it did before, the presidential cabinet or cabinet meetings is established as a precedent in the executive branch. And then the last piece that, this section two also talks about the ability of the president to make appointments, anything from ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, judges, supreme court, and other officers in the United States. And it also talks about inferior officers, which are more junior officers, that some of the presidents can do that without getting approved by Congress. This is also up for some interpretation and Washington's precedent's important there as well. It is. Washington was very frustrated by the Senate and basically decided to cut it out and not to seek advice and consent in person."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it also talks about inferior officers, which are more junior officers, that some of the presidents can do that without getting approved by Congress. This is also up for some interpretation and Washington's precedent's important there as well. It is. Washington was very frustrated by the Senate and basically decided to cut it out and not to seek advice and consent in person. One account says that when he left the Senate chamber, he said he'd be damned if they ever went there again. He didn't seek the Senate's written advice before making big decisions like treaty negotiations. And he just preferred to consult the cabinet."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Washington was very frustrated by the Senate and basically decided to cut it out and not to seek advice and consent in person. One account says that when he left the Senate chamber, he said he'd be damned if they ever went there again. He didn't seek the Senate's written advice before making big decisions like treaty negotiations. And he just preferred to consult the cabinet. And that cabinet had huge and important disagreements. Again, we know from the musical Hamilton, Hamilton and Jefferson disagree about the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States. They both give their opinions."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he just preferred to consult the cabinet. And that cabinet had huge and important disagreements. Again, we know from the musical Hamilton, Hamilton and Jefferson disagree about the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States. They both give their opinions. Washington listens to both and he sides with Hamilton over Jefferson and decides to bless the constitutionality of the Bank. He got that from his cabinet and not from Congress. And then finally in this appointment, to what degree can the president unilaterally take people out of their jobs, fire people?"}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They both give their opinions. Washington listens to both and he sides with Hamilton over Jefferson and decides to bless the constitutionality of the Bank. He got that from his cabinet and not from Congress. And then finally in this appointment, to what degree can the president unilaterally take people out of their jobs, fire people? That is also left to interpretation. That's right. Washington established the ability for a president unilaterally to fire executive officers or executive department heads."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then finally in this appointment, to what degree can the president unilaterally take people out of their jobs, fire people? That is also left to interpretation. That's right. Washington established the ability for a president unilaterally to fire executive officers or executive department heads. Since the Senate textually has the power to hire department heads, you could have read article two to allow it to have a mirror role in firing them as well. But the Supreme Court blessed this idea that the president can dismiss people on his own. There was an important case called Myers against United States, which said that the vesting clause, which we talked about earlier, gave the president both of the authority to execute the law and to remove executive officials."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Washington established the ability for a president unilaterally to fire executive officers or executive department heads. Since the Senate textually has the power to hire department heads, you could have read article two to allow it to have a mirror role in firing them as well. But the Supreme Court blessed this idea that the president can dismiss people on his own. There was an important case called Myers against United States, which said that the vesting clause, which we talked about earlier, gave the president both of the authority to execute the law and to remove executive officials. But there are other cases like the Humphreys executor case from 1935, which said that Congress could limit the president's ability to remove certain commissioners. But the broad precedent that Washington establishes is that the president's unitary authority allows him alone to fire executive branch officials. Well, fascinating."}, {"video_title": "Presidential precedents of George Washington   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There was an important case called Myers against United States, which said that the vesting clause, which we talked about earlier, gave the president both of the authority to execute the law and to remove executive officials. But there are other cases like the Humphreys executor case from 1935, which said that Congress could limit the president's ability to remove certain commissioners. But the broad precedent that Washington establishes is that the president's unitary authority allows him alone to fire executive branch officials. Well, fascinating. Well, thanks so much, Jeffrey. This is super valuable. Thanks, great to talk."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So first, what does it stand for? Literally, it just stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. That's the acronym. And so it'd be FICA, and then some people will call it FICA tax. And this isn't just to support Social Security, or to be technically correct, to support the old age survivors and disability insurance. It's also part of FICA tax is for that, and part is for Medicare. And so to make things clear, so it's the part that is for Social Security, or what we associate as Social Security, which is really the OASDI."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so it'd be FICA, and then some people will call it FICA tax. And this isn't just to support Social Security, or to be technically correct, to support the old age survivors and disability insurance. It's also part of FICA tax is for that, and part is for Medicare. And so to make things clear, so it's the part that is for Social Security, or what we associate as Social Security, which is really the OASDI. Did I get that right? O-A-S-D-I. So part of it is for Social Security, and then that part is 12.4% of the gross salary."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so to make things clear, so it's the part that is for Social Security, or what we associate as Social Security, which is really the OASDI. Did I get that right? O-A-S-D-I. So part of it is for Social Security, and then that part is 12.4% of the gross salary. But half of this is paid for by the employer, half is paid by the employee. And we'll do a calculation in a second. So 6.2% and 6.2%."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So part of it is for Social Security, and then that part is 12.4% of the gross salary. But half of this is paid for by the employer, half is paid by the employee. And we'll do a calculation in a second. So 6.2% and 6.2%. The part that's paid by the employer, that's part of the payroll tax, stuff that the employer pays above and beyond the gross income that they're giving to the employee. And we'll do that calculation in a second. The other thing that FICA tax is used for is Medicare."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So 6.2% and 6.2%. The part that's paid by the employer, that's part of the payroll tax, stuff that the employer pays above and beyond the gross income that they're giving to the employee. And we'll do that calculation in a second. The other thing that FICA tax is used for is Medicare. And this is for a total amount of 2.9% of an employee's gross salary, or 1.45% from the employer as part of the payroll tax, and 1.45% from the employee. And if you add these two things up, you get 15.3% total FICA tax. 15.3%, where once again, half is paid by the employer, and half is paid by the employee."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The other thing that FICA tax is used for is Medicare. And this is for a total amount of 2.9% of an employee's gross salary, or 1.45% from the employer as part of the payroll tax, and 1.45% from the employee. And if you add these two things up, you get 15.3% total FICA tax. 15.3%, where once again, half is paid by the employer, and half is paid by the employee. Now let's just do a calculation so that it makes a little bit more tangible sense of what I'm even talking about with this FICA tax. So let's imagine that you make $100,000 a year. And it's a nice number because it makes the math easy."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "15.3%, where once again, half is paid by the employer, and half is paid by the employee. Now let's just do a calculation so that it makes a little bit more tangible sense of what I'm even talking about with this FICA tax. So let's imagine that you make $100,000 a year. And it's a nice number because it makes the math easy. Then your employer, let me write it like this, employer, employee. So for Social Security, your employer will contribute 6.2% of this. So above and beyond paying the $100,000 gross salary, they will also pay 6.2%, or $6,200."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's a nice number because it makes the math easy. Then your employer, let me write it like this, employer, employee. So for Social Security, your employer will contribute 6.2% of this. So above and beyond paying the $100,000 gross salary, they will also pay 6.2%, or $6,200. And the employee will also pay $6,200. And that will be deducted from their paycheck. So what they get will be net of the $6,200."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So above and beyond paying the $100,000 gross salary, they will also pay 6.2%, or $6,200. And the employee will also pay $6,200. And that will be deducted from their paycheck. So what they get will be net of the $6,200. And then for Medicare, let me do that in pink. Then for Medicare, the employer will contribute $1,450. Once again, above and beyond the gross salary of $100,000."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what they get will be net of the $6,200. And then for Medicare, let me do that in pink. Then for Medicare, the employer will contribute $1,450. Once again, above and beyond the gross salary of $100,000. And the employee will pay $1,450 out of their gross salary. So the total amount that is paid by the employer is $7,650 in payroll tax for this one employee. And the total amount by the employee is the exact same amount, $7,650."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Once again, above and beyond the gross salary of $100,000. And the employee will pay $1,450 out of their gross salary. So the total amount that is paid by the employer is $7,650 in payroll tax for this one employee. And the total amount by the employee is the exact same amount, $7,650. So just to be clear, if you wanted to hire an employee and pay them $100,000 in gross salary, you actually would have to set aside $100,000 and the $7,650. So the total that the employer is paying, so employer, the total that they're paying, or let me just think of it this way, the total that the employer has to set aside, total employer, if you include the salary, is going to be $107,650. So they can cover the gross salary plus this payroll tax over here."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the total amount by the employee is the exact same amount, $7,650. So just to be clear, if you wanted to hire an employee and pay them $100,000 in gross salary, you actually would have to set aside $100,000 and the $7,650. So the total that the employer is paying, so employer, the total that they're paying, or let me just think of it this way, the total that the employer has to set aside, total employer, if you include the salary, is going to be $107,650. So they can cover the gross salary plus this payroll tax over here. The net that the employee is getting, and actually this isn't even the net. I shouldn't even call it the net. The employee is getting after paying FICA taxes is going to be the $100,000 minus the $7,650."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they can cover the gross salary plus this payroll tax over here. The net that the employee is getting, and actually this isn't even the net. I shouldn't even call it the net. The employee is getting after paying FICA taxes is going to be the $100,000 minus the $7,650. But I won't even write that number down. I mean, what is that? That's $92,350 because that's before paying just the traditional federal income tax and the traditional state income taxes."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The employee is getting after paying FICA taxes is going to be the $100,000 minus the $7,650. But I won't even write that number down. I mean, what is that? That's $92,350 because that's before paying just the traditional federal income tax and the traditional state income taxes. So that's going to cut it down a good bit. So the employee is going to take home probably on the order of $60,000 to $70,000, so above and beyond this thing right here. So even though the employer is paying this much, the employee is getting a lot less in terms of what they get to take home."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's $92,350 because that's before paying just the traditional federal income tax and the traditional state income taxes. So that's going to cut it down a good bit. So the employee is going to take home probably on the order of $60,000 to $70,000, so above and beyond this thing right here. So even though the employer is paying this much, the employee is getting a lot less in terms of what they get to take home. Now one thing that I think it is worth mentioning is unlike traditional federal income tax, and traditional federal income tax, the first several tens of thousands of dollars you make are not taxed. And then as you go up the brackets, each incremental dollar, as you enter one bracket or another, you start to pay a higher percentage on those. The FICA tax is actually very different."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So even though the employer is paying this much, the employee is getting a lot less in terms of what they get to take home. Now one thing that I think it is worth mentioning is unlike traditional federal income tax, and traditional federal income tax, the first several tens of thousands of dollars you make are not taxed. And then as you go up the brackets, each incremental dollar, as you enter one bracket or another, you start to pay a higher percentage on those. The FICA tax is actually very different. Some people would even call it a regressive income tax. And that's because you only pay the FICA tax on the first 106,000, or at least this is the numbers in 2011, you only paid on the first $106,800. So someone who makes $200,000 will pay the same FICA tax as someone who makes $106,800."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The FICA tax is actually very different. Some people would even call it a regressive income tax. And that's because you only pay the FICA tax on the first 106,000, or at least this is the numbers in 2011, you only paid on the first $106,800. So someone who makes $200,000 will pay the same FICA tax as someone who makes $106,800. So you only pay on the percentage below that. And the reason why is that the person making the $200,000 will get the exact same benefits as well as the person who pays $106,800. And this number, essentially, they try to index it roughly to inflation."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So someone who makes $200,000 will pay the same FICA tax as someone who makes $106,800. So you only pay on the percentage below that. And the reason why is that the person making the $200,000 will get the exact same benefits as well as the person who pays $106,800. And this number, essentially, they try to index it roughly to inflation. So it will go up over time. But to some degree, someone who makes, let's say, well, someone who makes below this threshold is going to pay this percentage. Between them and their employers, they're going to pay this percentage of their income."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this number, essentially, they try to index it roughly to inflation. So it will go up over time. But to some degree, someone who makes, let's say, well, someone who makes below this threshold is going to pay this percentage. Between them and their employers, they're going to pay this percentage of their income. Well, someone who makes much more than this will actually pay a smaller percentage of their income, but they'll end up getting the same benefits. And so that's one reason why it's considered regressive, is that as you make more money, you're actually paying a smaller percentage of your income on FICA tax. And the other reason why it's considered regressive is actually on the benefit side."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Between them and their employers, they're going to pay this percentage of their income. Well, someone who makes much more than this will actually pay a smaller percentage of their income, but they'll end up getting the same benefits. And so that's one reason why it's considered regressive, is that as you make more money, you're actually paying a smaller percentage of your income on FICA tax. And the other reason why it's considered regressive is actually on the benefit side. Because obviously, if you have two people receiving Social Security benefits, so you have this person. So this is when they turn 65. Let me put it this way."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the other reason why it's considered regressive is actually on the benefit side. Because obviously, if you have two people receiving Social Security benefits, so you have this person. So this is when they turn 65. Let me put it this way. So let's say that you have two people. They work their whole lives. And let's say they both retire at 65."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let me put it this way. So let's say that you have two people. They work their whole lives. And let's say they both retire at 65. Although, that retirement age is increasing. It's slowly being indexed up. And then they retire."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And let's say they both retire at 65. Although, that retirement age is increasing. It's slowly being indexed up. And then they retire. It's known that the wealthier people, or wealthier, and there's also demographics based on race and things like that. But it's known that wealthier people actually live longer. So they actually get benefits for a longer period of time."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then they retire. It's known that the wealthier people, or wealthier, and there's also demographics based on race and things like that. But it's known that wealthier people actually live longer. So they actually get benefits for a longer period of time. So they're actually able to get their benefits for longer. So it depends where you fall into it. Likely that even though there's this cap, someone higher up the income chain also probably did pay more into it."}, {"video_title": "FICA tax   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So they actually get benefits for a longer period of time. So they're actually able to get their benefits for longer. So it depends where you fall into it. Likely that even though there's this cap, someone higher up the income chain also probably did pay more into it. But they're also getting a bigger check for paying more into it. The check that you eventually get is based to some degree on what level of FICA tax you were paying. And they're very well likely to be able to collect these payments for longer than someone who maybe doesn't have quite the same, I guess, quality of life and doesn't actually live as long."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now today, it seems very natural to us that the executive branch of the U.S. government should be led by a president, but at the time of the founding, it wasn't at all certain that that would be the case. After all, the founders had just rebelled against a monarchy where power was placed in the hands of one individual. They'd been so nervous about executive power that the first governmental system of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, didn't have an executive branch at all. So to learn more about Article Two, I sought out the help of some experts. Professor Sai Prakash is an expert in the separation of powers, particularly executive powers, and teaches constitutional law, foreign relations law, and presidential powers at the University of Virginia School of Law. For more on the debate about what an executive branch should look like, I talked to Professor Michael Gerhart. He's a leading constitutional scholar whose specialties include civil rights, civil liberties, and separation of powers."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So to learn more about Article Two, I sought out the help of some experts. Professor Sai Prakash is an expert in the separation of powers, particularly executive powers, and teaches constitutional law, foreign relations law, and presidential powers at the University of Virginia School of Law. For more on the debate about what an executive branch should look like, I talked to Professor Michael Gerhart. He's a leading constitutional scholar whose specialties include civil rights, civil liberties, and separation of powers. So Professor Prakash, why did the Framers choose to invest power in a president? Were there any other options for an executive branch? They thought about creating an executive council, which would have been composed of three or more executives that would have jointly exercised whatever executive power they vested in the executive."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He's a leading constitutional scholar whose specialties include civil rights, civil liberties, and separation of powers. So Professor Prakash, why did the Framers choose to invest power in a president? Were there any other options for an executive branch? They thought about creating an executive council, which would have been composed of three or more executives that would have jointly exercised whatever executive power they vested in the executive. And so you might have had like a triumvirate, like they had in Rome, or an executive council, like they had in some states. And they also thought about doing something slightly different, which is to have a single president, but then require the president to go to a separate executive council before he made several important decisions. But in the end, they decided, we like to concentrate executive authority in the hands of one person, thinking that that would be better for law execution, better for assigning responsibility, it would bring energy to the executive branch, and the executive branch wouldn't be riven with dissent and dissension."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They thought about creating an executive council, which would have been composed of three or more executives that would have jointly exercised whatever executive power they vested in the executive. And so you might have had like a triumvirate, like they had in Rome, or an executive council, like they had in some states. And they also thought about doing something slightly different, which is to have a single president, but then require the president to go to a separate executive council before he made several important decisions. But in the end, they decided, we like to concentrate executive authority in the hands of one person, thinking that that would be better for law execution, better for assigning responsibility, it would bring energy to the executive branch, and the executive branch wouldn't be riven with dissent and dissension. I asked Professor Gerhart, how long it took the Framers to decide on the form the executive branch would take. It was something on which the Framers came to an agreement pretty quickly. They came into Philadelphia, and almost at the very outset, there was a proposal that came forward from Virginia, part of the Virginia plan."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But in the end, they decided, we like to concentrate executive authority in the hands of one person, thinking that that would be better for law execution, better for assigning responsibility, it would bring energy to the executive branch, and the executive branch wouldn't be riven with dissent and dissension. I asked Professor Gerhart, how long it took the Framers to decide on the form the executive branch would take. It was something on which the Framers came to an agreement pretty quickly. They came into Philadelphia, and almost at the very outset, there was a proposal that came forward from Virginia, part of the Virginia plan. And the Virginia plan proposed a single executive who would serve for seven years and not be eligible for re-election. The delegates would eventually agree on certain features which are now encapsulated or can be found in Article II. I think one of the tensions we see in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is trying to create a structure for government that's strong enough to do what it needs to do, but also one that doesn't have too much power so that it doesn't become a tyranny, as the Framers had seen in Europe."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They came into Philadelphia, and almost at the very outset, there was a proposal that came forward from Virginia, part of the Virginia plan. And the Virginia plan proposed a single executive who would serve for seven years and not be eligible for re-election. The delegates would eventually agree on certain features which are now encapsulated or can be found in Article II. I think one of the tensions we see in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is trying to create a structure for government that's strong enough to do what it needs to do, but also one that doesn't have too much power so that it doesn't become a tyranny, as the Framers had seen in Europe. So were they nervous about having an executive branch in the first place? That's a great question, Kim. You know, we had a confederation before the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I think one of the tensions we see in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is trying to create a structure for government that's strong enough to do what it needs to do, but also one that doesn't have too much power so that it doesn't become a tyranny, as the Framers had seen in Europe. So were they nervous about having an executive branch in the first place? That's a great question, Kim. You know, we had a confederation before the Constitution. It was called the Articles of Confederation. And in that system, we had Congress acting as a plural executive. And Congress and its observers of Congress thought that Congress wasn't really well suited to playing the role of executive, to supervising foreign affairs and to supervising executive officers, both military and civilian."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You know, we had a confederation before the Constitution. It was called the Articles of Confederation. And in that system, we had Congress acting as a plural executive. And Congress and its observers of Congress thought that Congress wasn't really well suited to playing the role of executive, to supervising foreign affairs and to supervising executive officers, both military and civilian. And so by the eve of the Philadelphia Convention where they wrote the Constitution, there were quite a few people saying, we need to have a separate executive. We need to invigorate it with authority. Because if we do that, we will then have a successful new government under the new Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Congress and its observers of Congress thought that Congress wasn't really well suited to playing the role of executive, to supervising foreign affairs and to supervising executive officers, both military and civilian. And so by the eve of the Philadelphia Convention where they wrote the Constitution, there were quite a few people saying, we need to have a separate executive. We need to invigorate it with authority. Because if we do that, we will then have a successful new government under the new Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, for example, wanted an executive who'd basically serve for life. He didn't get it. You can imagine that for many delegates, an executive who could serve for life would sound an awful lot like a king."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Because if we do that, we will then have a successful new government under the new Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, for example, wanted an executive who'd basically serve for life. He didn't get it. You can imagine that for many delegates, an executive who could serve for life would sound an awful lot like a king. And that's exactly what they had just rebelled against. Other people said, if you create a unitary executive, if you create the single executive, chief executive, you're gonna have a monarchy. You're gonna have someone who is intent upon seizing powers of various sorts, who's going to want to install maybe a hereditary monarchy somehow."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You can imagine that for many delegates, an executive who could serve for life would sound an awful lot like a king. And that's exactly what they had just rebelled against. Other people said, if you create a unitary executive, if you create the single executive, chief executive, you're gonna have a monarchy. You're gonna have someone who is intent upon seizing powers of various sorts, who's going to want to install maybe a hereditary monarchy somehow. And that was the tension between those who wanted to have a stronger executive, a stronger single executive, thinking that that would be the best thing for the government, and those who thought that a single executive would descend into a monarchy. So I imagine it was pretty tricky for the framers to think how they could have an executive branch that was powerful enough to get things done, but not so powerful that it took on that tyrannical cast that they were really eager to avoid. So what powers did the president eventually end up having?"}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You're gonna have someone who is intent upon seizing powers of various sorts, who's going to want to install maybe a hereditary monarchy somehow. And that was the tension between those who wanted to have a stronger executive, a stronger single executive, thinking that that would be the best thing for the government, and those who thought that a single executive would descend into a monarchy. So I imagine it was pretty tricky for the framers to think how they could have an executive branch that was powerful enough to get things done, but not so powerful that it took on that tyrannical cast that they were really eager to avoid. So what powers did the president eventually end up having? The president's made commander-in-chief of the army and the navy. He has the power to pardon. The president has the authority to nominate people to certain high-ranking offices subject to the advice and consent of the Senate."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what powers did the president eventually end up having? The president's made commander-in-chief of the army and the navy. He has the power to pardon. The president has the authority to nominate people to certain high-ranking offices subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Among those offices are included Supreme Court justices. The president has the authority to be able to negotiate treaties. So he's got a host of authorities, and then there's the central question that's disputed, Kim, which is does the first sentence of Article II, which says the executive power shall be vested in the president of the United States, does that also give the president any authority beyond what's listed in Article II, Sections 2 and 3?"}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The president has the authority to nominate people to certain high-ranking offices subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Among those offices are included Supreme Court justices. The president has the authority to be able to negotiate treaties. So he's got a host of authorities, and then there's the central question that's disputed, Kim, which is does the first sentence of Article II, which says the executive power shall be vested in the president of the United States, does that also give the president any authority beyond what's listed in Article II, Sections 2 and 3? So for instance, does the vesting clause of Article II give the president authority over law execution? Is he able to direct the execution of federal laws by subordinate executive officers? Does the president have the power to remove executive officers by virtue of the vesting clause?"}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So he's got a host of authorities, and then there's the central question that's disputed, Kim, which is does the first sentence of Article II, which says the executive power shall be vested in the president of the United States, does that also give the president any authority beyond what's listed in Article II, Sections 2 and 3? So for instance, does the vesting clause of Article II give the president authority over law execution? Is he able to direct the execution of federal laws by subordinate executive officers? Does the president have the power to remove executive officers by virtue of the vesting clause? And then significantly, does he have foreign affairs authorities by virtue of the vesting clause to speak to other nations, to direct US ambassadors, et cetera? And that's a dispute that's been ongoing for 200 years, whether the vesting clause really grants additional authorities to the president. So all those different powers we now more or less take for granted that are common to US presidents are all set forth for the most part, expressed in the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Does the president have the power to remove executive officers by virtue of the vesting clause? And then significantly, does he have foreign affairs authorities by virtue of the vesting clause to speak to other nations, to direct US ambassadors, et cetera? And that's a dispute that's been ongoing for 200 years, whether the vesting clause really grants additional authorities to the president. So all those different powers we now more or less take for granted that are common to US presidents are all set forth for the most part, expressed in the Constitution. There are a few implicit powers the president will take on over time. As I understand it, the president's powers have grown fairly significantly over time. Do you think the framers would be surprised by how much power the president has today?"}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So all those different powers we now more or less take for granted that are common to US presidents are all set forth for the most part, expressed in the Constitution. There are a few implicit powers the president will take on over time. As I understand it, the president's powers have grown fairly significantly over time. Do you think the framers would be surprised by how much power the president has today? Yes, it's grown, I think, to be perhaps more powerful than many of the framers initially thought it might be. There were some authorities, for example, the power to remove people in the executive branch that are not spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. Over time, the presidency would acquire that power, and ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States would ratify that or affirm that authority."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Do you think the framers would be surprised by how much power the president has today? Yes, it's grown, I think, to be perhaps more powerful than many of the framers initially thought it might be. There were some authorities, for example, the power to remove people in the executive branch that are not spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. Over time, the presidency would acquire that power, and ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States would ratify that or affirm that authority. That's one big area, removal power over executive branch officials that gets clarified and sharpened over time. Over time, the president has cited, the president and his assistants have cited the Vesting Clause as a source of a great amount of authority and some of those claims you might think are consistent with the Constitution and others you might think are inconsistent. So what are the things that presidents have claimed?"}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Over time, the presidency would acquire that power, and ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States would ratify that or affirm that authority. That's one big area, removal power over executive branch officials that gets clarified and sharpened over time. Over time, the president has cited, the president and his assistants have cited the Vesting Clause as a source of a great amount of authority and some of those claims you might think are consistent with the Constitution and others you might think are inconsistent. So what are the things that presidents have claimed? They've claimed the authority to direct the execution of federal statutes. I think that's consistent with the original design. They've claimed some limited authority over foreign affairs."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what are the things that presidents have claimed? They've claimed the authority to direct the execution of federal statutes. I think that's consistent with the original design. They've claimed some limited authority over foreign affairs. I think that too is consistent with the original design. They've also claimed authority to exercise certain powers in emergencies. That's more contested and more debatable, whether they have some sort of emergency power, either temporary or otherwise."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They've claimed some limited authority over foreign affairs. I think that too is consistent with the original design. They've also claimed authority to exercise certain powers in emergencies. That's more contested and more debatable, whether they have some sort of emergency power, either temporary or otherwise. When Abraham Lincoln comes into power, Congress is not in session, and Lincoln's gotta respond in real time to an invasion on federal territory and to try to begin the protection of the United States, and he does that initially without Congress being a part of it because he has to move very quickly. They've also claimed the authority to wage war, and that's also contested because, of course, Congress has the power to declare war, and many people believe that that text means that Congress gets to decide whether to wage war. Modern presidents take the position, or often take the position, that they can use military force overseas without getting a declaration of war, or more precisely, without getting congressional approval for the use of force overseas."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That's more contested and more debatable, whether they have some sort of emergency power, either temporary or otherwise. When Abraham Lincoln comes into power, Congress is not in session, and Lincoln's gotta respond in real time to an invasion on federal territory and to try to begin the protection of the United States, and he does that initially without Congress being a part of it because he has to move very quickly. They've also claimed the authority to wage war, and that's also contested because, of course, Congress has the power to declare war, and many people believe that that text means that Congress gets to decide whether to wage war. Modern presidents take the position, or often take the position, that they can use military force overseas without getting a declaration of war, or more precisely, without getting congressional approval for the use of force overseas. So yes, the president's powers have changed over time, and that's a source of deep controversy. So what checks can the executive branch use on the legislative or judicial branches of government? Kim, the executive has a veto, and the veto permits the president to reject legislation sent to his desk by Congress."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Modern presidents take the position, or often take the position, that they can use military force overseas without getting a declaration of war, or more precisely, without getting congressional approval for the use of force overseas. So yes, the president's powers have changed over time, and that's a source of deep controversy. So what checks can the executive branch use on the legislative or judicial branches of government? Kim, the executive has a veto, and the veto permits the president to reject legislation sent to his desk by Congress. So under the Constitution, Congress has to present all legislation to the president, and he can either sign it and thereby make it law, or he can veto it, and if he vetoes it and he sends back his objections to Congress, they then have the option of overriding the veto by a 2 3rds vote in both chambers. And so the veto gives the president great leverage over Congress, because they know that if he vehemently opposes a particular piece of legislation, they can only pass it if there are rather sizable supermajorities in both chambers. He has a power to be able to pardon people for federal offenses."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Kim, the executive has a veto, and the veto permits the president to reject legislation sent to his desk by Congress. So under the Constitution, Congress has to present all legislation to the president, and he can either sign it and thereby make it law, or he can veto it, and if he vetoes it and he sends back his objections to Congress, they then have the option of overriding the veto by a 2 3rds vote in both chambers. And so the veto gives the president great leverage over Congress, because they know that if he vehemently opposes a particular piece of legislation, they can only pass it if there are rather sizable supermajorities in both chambers. He has a power to be able to pardon people for federal offenses. So again, that's a unique presidential authority. The presidency, in a sense, has taken more of the limelight away from Congress, which might be making the law, but administering the law is gonna require a lot more time, and put the president in the position of also exercising discretion over how to enforce the law. So that becomes another important authority of the presidency."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He has a power to be able to pardon people for federal offenses. So again, that's a unique presidential authority. The presidency, in a sense, has taken more of the limelight away from Congress, which might be making the law, but administering the law is gonna require a lot more time, and put the president in the position of also exercising discretion over how to enforce the law. So that becomes another important authority of the presidency. How do you go about enforcing it? What kind of discretion do you have when you do enforce it? He also has the power to recommend measures to them."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So that becomes another important authority of the presidency. How do you go about enforcing it? What kind of discretion do you have when you do enforce it? He also has the power to recommend measures to them. Under the Constitution, that is to say, he can suggest that they pass legislation on a particular subject, thereby making sort of a vague suggestion, or he can actually present them a bill and say, I'd like you to consider this. They don't have to act on the bill, but he has that authority. And he can also tell them about the State of the Union."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He also has the power to recommend measures to them. Under the Constitution, that is to say, he can suggest that they pass legislation on a particular subject, thereby making sort of a vague suggestion, or he can actually present them a bill and say, I'd like you to consider this. They don't have to act on the bill, but he has that authority. And he can also tell them about the State of the Union. That's the State of the Union Clause. So those are the checks he sort of has on Congress, and those are significant checks. The members of Congress don't get paid unless the president signs the bill that passes the appropriation for them, or they override his veto."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he can also tell them about the State of the Union. That's the State of the Union Clause. So those are the checks he sort of has on Congress, and those are significant checks. The members of Congress don't get paid unless the president signs the bill that passes the appropriation for them, or they override his veto. So those are significant checks. And then with respect to the judiciary, Kim, there aren't as many checks in the Constitution. The Constitution never says the executive branch has to execute judgments issued by the courts, but that's been our practice, and I think it's an implicit feature of the Constitution that when courts issue judgments, the executive will honor them and enforce them."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The members of Congress don't get paid unless the president signs the bill that passes the appropriation for them, or they override his veto. So those are significant checks. And then with respect to the judiciary, Kim, there aren't as many checks in the Constitution. The Constitution never says the executive branch has to execute judgments issued by the courts, but that's been our practice, and I think it's an implicit feature of the Constitution that when courts issue judgments, the executive will honor them and enforce them. Because that's an implicit feature of the Constitution, presidents don't really have much leverage over the courts, because the president does get to nominate them and does get to appoint them, and that gives him some sort of say over who becomes a judge. But once they're judges, he doesn't have any say over what they decide. And he typically, as I said, enforces their judgment."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Constitution never says the executive branch has to execute judgments issued by the courts, but that's been our practice, and I think it's an implicit feature of the Constitution that when courts issue judgments, the executive will honor them and enforce them. Because that's an implicit feature of the Constitution, presidents don't really have much leverage over the courts, because the president does get to nominate them and does get to appoint them, and that gives him some sort of say over who becomes a judge. But once they're judges, he doesn't have any say over what they decide. And he typically, as I said, enforces their judgment. So the check on the judiciary is who gets into the federal courts, who gets to serve as a federal judge. Once they're judges, the president doesn't have the same kind of check that he has on Congress. There's no veto on judicial decisions, for instance."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And he typically, as I said, enforces their judgment. So the check on the judiciary is who gets into the federal courts, who gets to serve as a federal judge. Once they're judges, the president doesn't have the same kind of check that he has on Congress. There's no veto on judicial decisions, for instance. The president can unilaterally, or on his own, issue what are called executive orders, which are essentially mandates that govern the operations within the executive branch. One president can set the priorities one way, but another president can reshape them a different way. Interesting, because executive orders can do very positive things, like Truman's executive order that the armed services be integrated, but they can also do very negative things, for example, interning Japanese Americans during World War II."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There's no veto on judicial decisions, for instance. The president can unilaterally, or on his own, issue what are called executive orders, which are essentially mandates that govern the operations within the executive branch. One president can set the priorities one way, but another president can reshape them a different way. Interesting, because executive orders can do very positive things, like Truman's executive order that the armed services be integrated, but they can also do very negative things, for example, interning Japanese Americans during World War II. That is correct. And so the executive orders oftentimes might reflect a particular president's values, but again, also a particular president's priorities. The challenge with an executive order is that it only lasts longer than a particular president's term if other presidents are willing to sign off on them as well."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Interesting, because executive orders can do very positive things, like Truman's executive order that the armed services be integrated, but they can also do very negative things, for example, interning Japanese Americans during World War II. That is correct. And so the executive orders oftentimes might reflect a particular president's values, but again, also a particular president's priorities. The challenge with an executive order is that it only lasts longer than a particular president's term if other presidents are willing to sign off on them as well. And so, for example, you can see how President Trump has decided not to continue certain executive orders that President Obama put into place, just as President Obama chose not to extend certain executive orders President George W. Bush put into place. Lots of rules and laws are not made by Congress in the modern era. They're made by executive and independent agencies."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The challenge with an executive order is that it only lasts longer than a particular president's term if other presidents are willing to sign off on them as well. And so, for example, you can see how President Trump has decided not to continue certain executive orders that President Obama put into place, just as President Obama chose not to extend certain executive orders President George W. Bush put into place. Lots of rules and laws are not made by Congress in the modern era. They're made by executive and independent agencies. And so a lot of the rules that we have to follow about the environment or about labor or about securities, they come from agencies and not directly from Congress. And when the agency is an executive agency, the president not only appoints the people that run that agency, the president's often, the president or his assistants in the White House are often involved in crafting the rules and shaping the rules in various ways. And so if we think the mass of rules and legislation comes from the government, the executive, and not the Congress, then the president has a great role in that."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They're made by executive and independent agencies. And so a lot of the rules that we have to follow about the environment or about labor or about securities, they come from agencies and not directly from Congress. And when the agency is an executive agency, the president not only appoints the people that run that agency, the president's often, the president or his assistants in the White House are often involved in crafting the rules and shaping the rules in various ways. And so if we think the mass of rules and legislation comes from the government, the executive, and not the Congress, then the president has a great role in that. So our first president was George Washington. In what ways did Washington set important precedents that are still with us today? There are a lot of people, a lot of scholars who think that things would have been quite different had it not been Washington."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so if we think the mass of rules and legislation comes from the government, the executive, and not the Congress, then the president has a great role in that. So our first president was George Washington. In what ways did Washington set important precedents that are still with us today? There are a lot of people, a lot of scholars who think that things would have been quite different had it not been Washington. And the fact that George Washington would become the first president helped put a lot of people at ease because he was widely viewed as trustworthy and somebody who wouldn't be naturally disposed to become tyrannical. And Washington himself understood from the very outset of his administration that nearly everything he did would create a precedent for other presidents to follow. And so Washington ends up becoming quite influential, not just in helping define things, but also in reassuring people that this system can get off the ground and the presidency wouldn't necessarily be a tyrannical office and that the president, in fact, could be an effective part of a new government."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There are a lot of people, a lot of scholars who think that things would have been quite different had it not been Washington. And the fact that George Washington would become the first president helped put a lot of people at ease because he was widely viewed as trustworthy and somebody who wouldn't be naturally disposed to become tyrannical. And Washington himself understood from the very outset of his administration that nearly everything he did would create a precedent for other presidents to follow. And so Washington ends up becoming quite influential, not just in helping define things, but also in reassuring people that this system can get off the ground and the presidency wouldn't necessarily be a tyrannical office and that the president, in fact, could be an effective part of a new government. If Washington's not there and they can't see an honest man taking over as president, you might very well have had an executive council. They might have been wary of who would be a unitary executive and wanted to have a plural executive in order to make sure that no one person became too powerful. And another way of thinking about this is, if you create a new constitution in the wake of President Nixon, you're gonna have a different constitution because people are more distrustful of executive authority."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so Washington ends up becoming quite influential, not just in helping define things, but also in reassuring people that this system can get off the ground and the presidency wouldn't necessarily be a tyrannical office and that the president, in fact, could be an effective part of a new government. If Washington's not there and they can't see an honest man taking over as president, you might very well have had an executive council. They might have been wary of who would be a unitary executive and wanted to have a plural executive in order to make sure that no one person became too powerful. And another way of thinking about this is, if you create a new constitution in the wake of President Nixon, you're gonna have a different constitution because people are more distrustful of executive authority. If you have a new constitution after a really honest and noble and successful presidency, people are gonna write an article to, an executive article that's more favorable to the president. And the situation for Washington couldn't have been more favorable. They had seen the problems with weak execution under the articles and in the states."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And another way of thinking about this is, if you create a new constitution in the wake of President Nixon, you're gonna have a different constitution because people are more distrustful of executive authority. If you have a new constitution after a really honest and noble and successful presidency, people are gonna write an article to, an executive article that's more favorable to the president. And the situation for Washington couldn't have been more favorable. They had seen the problems with weak execution under the articles and in the states. They thought that weak executives were a problem. They saw this person who could be a strong executive and be a responsible and wise executive. And those two things conspired to create an executive that was one of the most powerful in the world."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They had seen the problems with weak execution under the articles and in the states. They thought that weak executives were a problem. They saw this person who could be a strong executive and be a responsible and wise executive. And those two things conspired to create an executive that was one of the most powerful in the world. So Washington is trying to signal, look, we don't wanna create tyrants here. We're not kings. We're not presidents for life."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And those two things conspired to create an executive that was one of the most powerful in the world. So Washington is trying to signal, look, we don't wanna create tyrants here. We're not kings. We're not presidents for life. We'll serve at most for a couple terms, and then we will willingly lay down our authority and let other people follow us. That's actually a critical precedent. But again, every president until Franklin Roosevelt follows."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We're not presidents for life. We'll serve at most for a couple terms, and then we will willingly lay down our authority and let other people follow us. That's actually a critical precedent. But again, every president until Franklin Roosevelt follows. And it's one that reflects Washington's special values that the most important office ultimately is not the office of the presidency. It's actually the office, so to speak, the position of being a citizen of this country. So we've learned that thanks to the example set by George Washington, the framers of the Constitution felt confident that they could invest power in a president to have an energetic executive branch."}, {"video_title": "Article II of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But again, every president until Franklin Roosevelt follows. And it's one that reflects Washington's special values that the most important office ultimately is not the office of the presidency. It's actually the office, so to speak, the position of being a citizen of this country. So we've learned that thanks to the example set by George Washington, the framers of the Constitution felt confident that they could invest power in a president to have an energetic executive branch. But as Cy Perkosz noted, the framers might be surprised at the way the president's powers have grown over time through executive orders and the use of military force. However, Michael Gerhardt brings up an important point that in the United States, the president is first and foremost a citizen, not a ruler. To learn more about Article Two, visit the National Constitution Center's interactive constitution and Khan Academy's resources on US government and politics."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this graphic here, which comes from the Campaign Finance Institute, and it's based on data from the Federal Election Committee, it clearly shows how the costs of congressional campaigns have increased dramatically since 1986. If you look at nominal dollars for the House of Representatives, so this is just the actual dollar amount, you see it's almost grown by a factor of four or five. But even if you adjust it for inflation, the cost has doubled for your average House campaign. And you see a similar trend in the Senate campaigns, where even adjusted for inflation, the cost of your average Senate campaign has increased by 50%. Now, this also does not capture all of the outside money, things like Super PACs and whatever else. If you fast forward to 2016, your average Senate campaign costs a little over $10 million. But there's about that much money, approximately $10 million, that also comes in from things like Super PACs."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you see a similar trend in the Senate campaigns, where even adjusted for inflation, the cost of your average Senate campaign has increased by 50%. Now, this also does not capture all of the outside money, things like Super PACs and whatever else. If you fast forward to 2016, your average Senate campaign costs a little over $10 million. But there's about that much money, approximately $10 million, that also comes in from things like Super PACs. And so it's totally near $20 million for a Senate campaign on average. And so particularly competitive campaigns can be a lot more than even that. And if you wanna talk about really big money, you just have to look at presidential campaigns."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But there's about that much money, approximately $10 million, that also comes in from things like Super PACs. And so it's totally near $20 million for a Senate campaign on average. And so particularly competitive campaigns can be a lot more than even that. And if you wanna talk about really big money, you just have to look at presidential campaigns. So this right over here is the last presidential campaign in 2016. And you can see that Hillary Clinton's candidate committee money was over half a billion dollars. She actually had a good bit more than Donald Trump."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if you wanna talk about really big money, you just have to look at presidential campaigns. So this right over here is the last presidential campaign in 2016. And you can see that Hillary Clinton's candidate committee money was over half a billion dollars. She actually had a good bit more than Donald Trump. And she had a good bit more outside money. But the entire Hillary Clinton campaign had nearly $800 million budget. And if you combine Hillary Clinton plus Donald Trump, you have a total of $1.2 billion for the 2016 campaign."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "She actually had a good bit more than Donald Trump. And she had a good bit more outside money. But the entire Hillary Clinton campaign had nearly $800 million budget. And if you combine Hillary Clinton plus Donald Trump, you have a total of $1.2 billion for the 2016 campaign. In 1980, the total was 92 million. It's more than a 12-fold increase. And even if you were to adjust for inflation, which these numbers are not, but even if you did, you would see a several-fold increase in the cost of a campaign."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if you combine Hillary Clinton plus Donald Trump, you have a total of $1.2 billion for the 2016 campaign. In 1980, the total was 92 million. It's more than a 12-fold increase. And even if you were to adjust for inflation, which these numbers are not, but even if you did, you would see a several-fold increase in the cost of a campaign. So when you look at these types of numbers, there's a couple of interesting questions that come up. One is what is the money for? Money for what?"}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And even if you were to adjust for inflation, which these numbers are not, but even if you did, you would see a several-fold increase in the cost of a campaign. So when you look at these types of numbers, there's a couple of interesting questions that come up. One is what is the money for? Money for what? Well, there's many answers to that. One is that, especially in a presidential campaign, and to a lesser degree in a congressional campaign, the campaigns have to pay professional full-time staffers. So campaign, campaign staff."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Money for what? Well, there's many answers to that. One is that, especially in a presidential campaign, and to a lesser degree in a congressional campaign, the campaigns have to pay professional full-time staffers. So campaign, campaign staff. You'll often have a lot of volunteers. But for example, Hillary Clinton in 2016 had approximately 4,200 people on payroll, where about 800 people were working directly for her campaign, another 400 with the Democratic National Committee, and roughly 3,000 people with state Democratic parties in the battleground states. And beyond on the staff, you also might have paid political consultants."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So campaign, campaign staff. You'll often have a lot of volunteers. But for example, Hillary Clinton in 2016 had approximately 4,200 people on payroll, where about 800 people were working directly for her campaign, another 400 with the Democratic National Committee, and roughly 3,000 people with state Democratic parties in the battleground states. And beyond on the staff, you also might have paid political consultants. And what do all of these people do? Well, they come up with a campaign strategy. Some of them will do polling to understand the sentiment in the larger population on specific issues or on the candidate."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And beyond on the staff, you also might have paid political consultants. And what do all of these people do? Well, they come up with a campaign strategy. Some of them will do polling to understand the sentiment in the larger population on specific issues or on the candidate. And they will do a lot of campaign advertising and marketing, advertising. And so the staff will think about, well, what kind of advertising do we need to do? And then a large chunk of the money actually goes to the advertising itself, advertising, especially in mass media, if we're thinking about radio and television."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Some of them will do polling to understand the sentiment in the larger population on specific issues or on the candidate. And they will do a lot of campaign advertising and marketing, advertising. And so the staff will think about, well, what kind of advertising do we need to do? And then a large chunk of the money actually goes to the advertising itself, advertising, especially in mass media, if we're thinking about radio and television. Now, an interesting question is, given that in the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by so much, how was he able to actually win that campaign? Well, there's several possible explanations to that. One is that Donald Trump was very effective at getting himself attention that he didn't have to spend money for."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then a large chunk of the money actually goes to the advertising itself, advertising, especially in mass media, if we're thinking about radio and television. Now, an interesting question is, given that in the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by so much, how was he able to actually win that campaign? Well, there's several possible explanations to that. One is that Donald Trump was very effective at getting himself attention that he didn't have to spend money for. On top of that, a trend that has emerged really since the 2008 Obama campaign is the increasing use of social media in campaigns. Before social media became a major player, most of that energy really was in mass media advertising. But now with social media, you could cater a message to specific groups."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One is that Donald Trump was very effective at getting himself attention that he didn't have to spend money for. On top of that, a trend that has emerged really since the 2008 Obama campaign is the increasing use of social media in campaigns. Before social media became a major player, most of that energy really was in mass media advertising. But now with social media, you could cater a message to specific groups. You could focus your message. You could activate your base more. And so more and more, social media, which is currently a lot less expensive than, say, TV advertising, is becoming a bigger and bigger part of campaigns."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But now with social media, you could cater a message to specific groups. You could focus your message. You could activate your base more. And so more and more, social media, which is currently a lot less expensive than, say, TV advertising, is becoming a bigger and bigger part of campaigns. Now, a last answer to the question of why so much money is that you have long campaigns in the United States. In some countries, the campaigns might be anywhere from two to six weeks. In the United States, the formal campaign, if you think about the first primaries, it's in February of an election year in a presidential cycle, and then the election is in November."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so more and more, social media, which is currently a lot less expensive than, say, TV advertising, is becoming a bigger and bigger part of campaigns. Now, a last answer to the question of why so much money is that you have long campaigns in the United States. In some countries, the campaigns might be anywhere from two to six weeks. In the United States, the formal campaign, if you think about the first primaries, it's in February of an election year in a presidential cycle, and then the election is in November. So you're looking at roughly nine to 10 months from the first primary and caucuses to the election. But well before the first caucus, you're going to have the various candidates raising money and trying to get name recognition. And so the actual campaign and money raising for a lot of these candidates might be closer to two years."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In the United States, the formal campaign, if you think about the first primaries, it's in February of an election year in a presidential cycle, and then the election is in November. So you're looking at roughly nine to 10 months from the first primary and caucuses to the election. But well before the first caucus, you're going to have the various candidates raising money and trying to get name recognition. And so the actual campaign and money raising for a lot of these candidates might be closer to two years. And so you can imagine, if you're spending two years with consultants, trying to do advertising, just so you have a showing in some of those first caucuses and primaries, well, that's going to cost you a lot of money. Now, it's for you to think about whether these are good or bad things. Many people would argue that having such a long election cycle doesn't allow a lot of focus on other things, especially if someone's the incumbent."}, {"video_title": "Cost and duration of modern campaigns   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the actual campaign and money raising for a lot of these candidates might be closer to two years. And so you can imagine, if you're spending two years with consultants, trying to do advertising, just so you have a showing in some of those first caucuses and primaries, well, that's going to cost you a lot of money. Now, it's for you to think about whether these are good or bad things. Many people would argue that having such a long election cycle doesn't allow a lot of focus on other things, especially if someone's the incumbent. If they're campaigning the whole time, can they even govern? And then another argument against all of this money is it might put too much influence in the hands of people who can give money. I'll let you think about that."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I am pro ABCs and 4123s! Plus, I promise I have no skeletons in my closet. I do not even have one in my body. Hey Grover, what are you doing? Oh, hello there Sal Khan! I am just running for President of the United States of America. I heard there was an upcoming election, so I figured, eh, why not?"}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Hey Grover, what are you doing? Oh, hello there Sal Khan! I am just running for President of the United States of America. I heard there was an upcoming election, so I figured, eh, why not? Well that's great, Grover. Yeah! Maybe we can help more people vote."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I heard there was an upcoming election, so I figured, eh, why not? Well that's great, Grover. Yeah! Maybe we can help more people vote. Oh, that would be terrific! So, exactly how many votes do I need to win? Well, you know about the Electoral College, right?"}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe we can help more people vote. Oh, that would be terrific! So, exactly how many votes do I need to win? Well, you know about the Electoral College, right? Of course, Sal baby! I know exactly what the Electrical... Electoral..."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, you know about the Electoral College, right? Of course, Sal baby! I know exactly what the Electrical... Electoral... Electoral College is. Great. So why don't we explain it together for those who don't know?"}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Electoral... Electoral College is. Great. So why don't we explain it together for those who don't know? Oh, why certainly! What a brilliant idea! Um... Why don't you start us off?"}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So why don't we explain it together for those who don't know? Oh, why certainly! What a brilliant idea! Um... Why don't you start us off? Sure. In a direct democracy, I as a citizen will vote for a candidate, and whichever candidate has the most popular votes in the country, they will become President. But we do not have a direct democracy."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Um... Why don't you start us off? Sure. In a direct democracy, I as a citizen will vote for a candidate, and whichever candidate has the most popular votes in the country, they will become President. But we do not have a direct democracy. We have an indirect democracy. So what happens is, is I vote in my state, I live in California, and whichever candidate gets the most votes in California will get all of California's 55 electoral votes. And that's true in most states."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But we do not have a direct democracy. We have an indirect democracy. So what happens is, is I vote in my state, I live in California, and whichever candidate gets the most votes in California will get all of California's 55 electoral votes. And that's true in most states. Whoever gets the most votes in that state gets all of the votes for that state. And that number comes from the number of Congress people California has. Um, I am not following."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's true in most states. Whoever gets the most votes in that state gets all of the votes for that state. And that number comes from the number of Congress people California has. Um, I am not following. So how can I explain it in a way that you might understand? Chickens. I know chickens!"}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Um, I am not following. So how can I explain it in a way that you might understand? Chickens. I know chickens! Chickens! They are my biggest demo! Okay, chickens."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I know chickens! Chickens! They are my biggest demo! Okay, chickens. So instead of electors, we'll say chickens. Instead of the electoral college, I'll say chicken college. Okay, that I can follow."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay, chickens. So instead of electors, we'll say chickens. Instead of the electoral college, I'll say chicken college. Okay, that I can follow. Okay. The number of chicken votes for each state is equal to the number of Congress people for that state. In every state?"}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay, that I can follow. Okay. The number of chicken votes for each state is equal to the number of Congress people for that state. In every state? Yes. From California to the New York Island? From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters?"}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In every state? Yes. From California to the New York Island? From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters? Yes. The 50 states. Ah!"}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters? Yes. The 50 states. Ah! And so there are a total of 538 chicken votes in the chicken college. For example, Florida has 29 chicken votes. And that's the same as the 29 Congress people that they have."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Ah! And so there are a total of 538 chicken votes in the chicken college. For example, Florida has 29 chicken votes. And that's the same as the 29 Congress people that they have. Two senators and 27 representatives. Oh, hello there, chickens! Okay then."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that's the same as the 29 Congress people that they have. Two senators and 27 representatives. Oh, hello there, chickens! Okay then. So how do I, candidate Grover, win the presidency? Well, since there are 538 chicken votes in total, you just have to get more than half of those. More than half?"}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay then. So how do I, candidate Grover, win the presidency? Well, since there are 538 chicken votes in total, you just have to get more than half of those. More than half? Hmm. Let me see here. Uh, one, carry the two, divide it by eight."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "More than half? Hmm. Let me see here. Uh, one, carry the two, divide it by eight. Grover, we know the actual number. You just have to get at least 270 chicken votes in the chicken college. Just 270 chickens?"}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Uh, one, carry the two, divide it by eight. Grover, we know the actual number. You just have to get at least 270 chicken votes in the chicken college. Just 270 chickens? I can do that! 300 chickens just crossed the road to hear me speak at the rally! Oh, great."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Just 270 chickens? I can do that! 300 chickens just crossed the road to hear me speak at the rally! Oh, great. Do you have your speech? Oh, yeah. It's right here."}, {"video_title": "Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Oh, great. Do you have your speech? Oh, yeah. It's right here. Where did they put it? Eh, I'll just wing it. Bye, Sal!"}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "When you first learn about the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and the debates and the compromises, it's easy to assume that, okay, that's interesting from a historical point of view, but how does it affect me today? Well, the simple answer is it affects you incredibly, those compromises that were made over 200 years ago. So the most obvious question is, well, what were those compromises? Well, to even start to appreciate the compromises, let's start with this picture or this chart of the census in 1790. So it gives a pretty good snapshot of what the United States looked like after the Constitution was ratified. So as you can see, the population as a whole was much smaller than it is today. It was roughly a little under four million people."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, to even start to appreciate the compromises, let's start with this picture or this chart of the census in 1790. So it gives a pretty good snapshot of what the United States looked like after the Constitution was ratified. So as you can see, the population as a whole was much smaller than it is today. It was roughly a little under four million people. Today, the United States is over 300 million people. And then you also see a pretty big population difference between the states. You have big states like Virginia, which at the time had 750,000 people, and then you had small states like Delaware that had 60,000 people, or you have Rhode Island that has a little under 70,000 people."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It was roughly a little under four million people. Today, the United States is over 300 million people. And then you also see a pretty big population difference between the states. You have big states like Virginia, which at the time had 750,000 people, and then you had small states like Delaware that had 60,000 people, or you have Rhode Island that has a little under 70,000 people. And so you can imagine the Virginians or the people from Massachusetts might have said, hey, we want representation in the legislative, in Congress, to be based on population. It should be, we have a lot of people, we should get more of a say, while someone from, say, Delaware might say, wait, hold on a second. Under the Articles of Confederation, we were a sovereign state."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have big states like Virginia, which at the time had 750,000 people, and then you had small states like Delaware that had 60,000 people, or you have Rhode Island that has a little under 70,000 people. And so you can imagine the Virginians or the people from Massachusetts might have said, hey, we want representation in the legislative, in Congress, to be based on population. It should be, we have a lot of people, we should get more of a say, while someone from, say, Delaware might say, wait, hold on a second. Under the Articles of Confederation, we were a sovereign state. We don't wanna just become, do whatever the Virginians or the people from Massachusetts wanna do. We wanna have a more equal say. And of course, the big state folks would have said, well, no, then your population, people in your population, in your state, are going to be overrepresented."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Under the Articles of Confederation, we were a sovereign state. We don't wanna just become, do whatever the Virginians or the people from Massachusetts wanna do. We wanna have a more equal say. And of course, the big state folks would have said, well, no, then your population, people in your population, in your state, are going to be overrepresented. And so this was a serious debate, and it resulted in what is called the Great Compromise. The Great Compromise, which is probably the most cited compromise coming out of the US Constitution. And it's the notion of, okay, well, let's have it both ways."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And of course, the big state folks would have said, well, no, then your population, people in your population, in your state, are going to be overrepresented. And so this was a serious debate, and it resulted in what is called the Great Compromise. The Great Compromise, which is probably the most cited compromise coming out of the US Constitution. And it's the notion of, okay, well, let's have it both ways. In the legislative, let's create two houses. Let's do one house that is based on population, so the House of Representatives, where Virginia will get more representation than a Delaware. But then let's make another house called the Senate, where every state has equal representation, where you have two senators per state."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's the notion of, okay, well, let's have it both ways. In the legislative, let's create two houses. Let's do one house that is based on population, so the House of Representatives, where Virginia will get more representation than a Delaware. But then let's make another house called the Senate, where every state has equal representation, where you have two senators per state. And to appreciate that this is, even today, a controversial thing, here is an article from the New York Times from 2013. This is an article that's talking about perceived inequalities of per-person federal funding. And it says, and the article is literally named, Big State, Small State."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But then let's make another house called the Senate, where every state has equal representation, where you have two senators per state. And to appreciate that this is, even today, a controversial thing, here is an article from the New York Times from 2013. This is an article that's talking about perceived inequalities of per-person federal funding. And it says, and the article is literally named, Big State, Small State. Vermont's 625,000 residents have two United States senators, and so do New York's 19 million. That means that a Vermonter has 30 times the voting power in the Senate of a New Yorker just over the state line. The biggest inequality between two adjacent states."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it says, and the article is literally named, Big State, Small State. Vermont's 625,000 residents have two United States senators, and so do New York's 19 million. That means that a Vermonter has 30 times the voting power in the Senate of a New Yorker just over the state line. The biggest inequality between two adjacent states. The nation's largest gap between Wyoming and California is more than double that. So they're making the argument that at least in the Senate, a person in Vermont has 30 times the representation as a person in New York. And if you compare Wyoming and California, it's a factor of 60."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The biggest inequality between two adjacent states. The nation's largest gap between Wyoming and California is more than double that. So they're making the argument that at least in the Senate, a person in Vermont has 30 times the representation as a person in New York. And if you compare Wyoming and California, it's a factor of 60. And they say the difference reflects the growing disparity in their citizens' voting power, and it is not an anomaly. The Constitution has always given residents of states with small populations a lift. So this is coming straight out of the Great Compromise."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if you compare Wyoming and California, it's a factor of 60. And they say the difference reflects the growing disparity in their citizens' voting power, and it is not an anomaly. The Constitution has always given residents of states with small populations a lift. So this is coming straight out of the Great Compromise. But the size and importance of the gap has grown markedly in recent decades, in ways the framers probably never anticipated. So you can imagine, this is the New York Times, so they probably might favor a little bit more representation for New Yorkers. But it's an interesting thing to think about."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is coming straight out of the Great Compromise. But the size and importance of the gap has grown markedly in recent decades, in ways the framers probably never anticipated. So you can imagine, this is the New York Times, so they probably might favor a little bit more representation for New Yorkers. But it's an interesting thing to think about. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Could they have predicted how much the United States would grow, be the movement to the cities, even in that census of 1790, we saw a factor of a little more than 10 between a Virginia and, say, a Rhode Island. But now we're talking about a factor of 60 between California and Wyoming."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it's an interesting thing to think about. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Could they have predicted how much the United States would grow, be the movement to the cities, even in that census of 1790, we saw a factor of a little more than 10 between a Virginia and, say, a Rhode Island. But now we're talking about a factor of 60 between California and Wyoming. There's no right answer here, but it is something very interesting to think about. And as you can see, it's something that people are even talking about today. Now, the other significant compromise that is also talked a lot about these days is the notion of the electoral college."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But now we're talking about a factor of 60 between California and Wyoming. There's no right answer here, but it is something very interesting to think about. And as you can see, it's something that people are even talking about today. Now, the other significant compromise that is also talked a lot about these days is the notion of the electoral college. So people who are more in the anti-federalist camp, they were more in favor of a participatory democracy, a direct democracy, where you have one person, one vote, and whoever gets the majority of the vote in the country, well, maybe they should be president. But federalists, especially folks like James Madison, they were a little suspicious of just the crowd voting whoever they wanted. They wanted it to go through a filter, with the idea that maybe that filter could temper the passions of the crowd, so to speak."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, the other significant compromise that is also talked a lot about these days is the notion of the electoral college. So people who are more in the anti-federalist camp, they were more in favor of a participatory democracy, a direct democracy, where you have one person, one vote, and whoever gets the majority of the vote in the country, well, maybe they should be president. But federalists, especially folks like James Madison, they were a little suspicious of just the crowd voting whoever they wanted. They wanted it to go through a filter, with the idea that maybe that filter could temper the passions of the crowd, so to speak. And so they devised this system where it isn't one person, one vote, but every state has a certain number of electors. So you vote for electors, and then the states send them, and then they can place their vote for president. It turns out that most states have decided to have a winner-take-all policy, so that maybe they could matter more for the presidential election."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They wanted it to go through a filter, with the idea that maybe that filter could temper the passions of the crowd, so to speak. And so they devised this system where it isn't one person, one vote, but every state has a certain number of electors. So you vote for electors, and then the states send them, and then they can place their vote for president. It turns out that most states have decided to have a winner-take-all policy, so that maybe they could matter more for the presidential election. But what that's resulted in is if you take a big state like Texas, and just draw a quick drawing of Texas, or a big state like California right over here, and a winner-take-all, as soon as you cross 50%, you get 50.1% in either one of these states, and in other big states, it's true in most states, well, then you'll get all of the electors for that state. So even if you get 70% of the vote in Texas, or 70% in the vote of California, it's equivalent to getting 50.1%. The reason why this has resulted in some significant debate, in the recent past, you've had two major elections where the electoral college majority was different than the popular majority."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It turns out that most states have decided to have a winner-take-all policy, so that maybe they could matter more for the presidential election. But what that's resulted in is if you take a big state like Texas, and just draw a quick drawing of Texas, or a big state like California right over here, and a winner-take-all, as soon as you cross 50%, you get 50.1% in either one of these states, and in other big states, it's true in most states, well, then you'll get all of the electors for that state. So even if you get 70% of the vote in Texas, or 70% in the vote of California, it's equivalent to getting 50.1%. The reason why this has resulted in some significant debate, in the recent past, you've had two major elections where the electoral college majority was different than the popular majority. You had Bush versus Gore in 2000, and you have Trump versus Clinton in 2016. Now, two of the other major compromises that came out of the Constitutional Convention are less debated today, and that's a good thing, because they were resolved finally in 1865 by the 13th Amendment that came out of the Civil War, and these were around slavery. You have the 3 5ths, 3 5ths Compromise."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The reason why this has resulted in some significant debate, in the recent past, you've had two major elections where the electoral college majority was different than the popular majority. You had Bush versus Gore in 2000, and you have Trump versus Clinton in 2016. Now, two of the other major compromises that came out of the Constitutional Convention are less debated today, and that's a good thing, because they were resolved finally in 1865 by the 13th Amendment that came out of the Civil War, and these were around slavery. You have the 3 5ths, 3 5ths Compromise. And this is actually still more of a notion around representation. Even in the House, how do you determine the population that's gonna dictate how many representatives you get? What about slaves?"}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You have the 3 5ths, 3 5ths Compromise. And this is actually still more of a notion around representation. Even in the House, how do you determine the population that's gonna dictate how many representatives you get? What about slaves? If you look back to this chart right over here, notice some of the southern states had a significant fraction of their population that were slaves, and so you can imagine that their delegates were saying, hey, we wanna count them in the population. They didn't want them to vote, but they said, hey, when we decide how many representatives we get, we wanna count these 293,000 people in Virginia when we decide how many representatives they get. And you can imagine other states, either just because they didn't wanna dilute their own representation, or maybe even some of them might have felt morally against something like slavery, said, well, you know, you shouldn't get a benefit because you're doing this thing called slavery, and so they were against it."}, {"video_title": "The impact of constitutional compromises on us today   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What about slaves? If you look back to this chart right over here, notice some of the southern states had a significant fraction of their population that were slaves, and so you can imagine that their delegates were saying, hey, we wanna count them in the population. They didn't want them to vote, but they said, hey, when we decide how many representatives we get, we wanna count these 293,000 people in Virginia when we decide how many representatives they get. And you can imagine other states, either just because they didn't wanna dilute their own representation, or maybe even some of them might have felt morally against something like slavery, said, well, you know, you shouldn't get a benefit because you're doing this thing called slavery, and so they were against it. And so the compromise, and once again, James Madison was significantly involved here, was the 3 5ths Compromise, that for determining representation, a slave would count as 3 5ths of a person, which is offensive to our sensibilities, but that's the compromise they came up with, but it wasn't an issue anymore once slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. The last major compromise that people will talk about, and this one also revolves around slavery, is the importation, importation of slaves. During the Revolution, because Great Britain had such a significant role in the slave trade, the colonies were pretty, or the states, the nascent states, were pretty unified around not participating, at least with Great Britain, but once the Revolution was over, this became an issue again."}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In many videos already, we have talked about our three branches of government in the United States, but what we're gonna do in this video is focus a little bit more on the judicial branch. As we've talked about, judicial branch's main goal is to be the final authority on the United States Constitution. And the main check that they have on the legislative and executive branches is that they can deem things that are happening in the other branches, say a law that gets passed by Congress or an executive order from the president, as being unconstitutional. They can also interpret the laws that have been passed, and so that's where they get their power. Now, another interesting thing about the judicial branch that we've talked about is, unlike the executive and legislative branch, where these folks are elected in a semi-regular basis, the Supreme Court, these are lifetime appointments. Once someone is nominated by a president and then confirmed by the Senate, they're in the Supreme Court for life. And so the question is, is when the Supreme Court does something that, say, the president or a member of Congress disagrees with, what can they do?"}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They can also interpret the laws that have been passed, and so that's where they get their power. Now, another interesting thing about the judicial branch that we've talked about is, unlike the executive and legislative branch, where these folks are elected in a semi-regular basis, the Supreme Court, these are lifetime appointments. Once someone is nominated by a president and then confirmed by the Senate, they're in the Supreme Court for life. And so the question is, is when the Supreme Court does something that, say, the president or a member of Congress disagrees with, what can they do? Well, there's a couple of options here. One option, let's say that a clause of a law is deemed unconstitutional. So let's say that there's a law here, and this part of it, the US Supreme Court says, no, that's not consistent with the Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so the question is, is when the Supreme Court does something that, say, the president or a member of Congress disagrees with, what can they do? Well, there's a couple of options here. One option, let's say that a clause of a law is deemed unconstitutional. So let's say that there's a law here, and this part of it, the US Supreme Court says, no, that's not consistent with the Constitution. Sometimes the legislature might decide to, hey, let's try to pass another law that clarifies that clause in a way that is in line with the Constitution, or we'll do a whole other law that's worded different, but it has the same purpose. And so the legislative branch can't overrule the judicial branch, but they can try to revise their laws to get more in line with their intent, but not get the negative judicial review. The president also has some levers."}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's say that there's a law here, and this part of it, the US Supreme Court says, no, that's not consistent with the Constitution. Sometimes the legislature might decide to, hey, let's try to pass another law that clarifies that clause in a way that is in line with the Constitution, or we'll do a whole other law that's worded different, but it has the same purpose. And so the legislative branch can't overrule the judicial branch, but they can try to revise their laws to get more in line with their intent, but not get the negative judicial review. The president also has some levers. There's examples in history of the president just outright ignoring a judicial verdict. For example, Thomas Jefferson, during the Embargo Acts during his administration, this is during the Napoleonic Wars, and those warring nations were taking advantage of American vessels and seamen, and Thomas Jefferson decided, hey, we don't wanna have trade with those countries. There were aspects of those that the Supreme Court, including some Jefferson appointees, decided were unconstitutional, but Jefferson just kinda kept executing the way he wanted to."}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The president also has some levers. There's examples in history of the president just outright ignoring a judicial verdict. For example, Thomas Jefferson, during the Embargo Acts during his administration, this is during the Napoleonic Wars, and those warring nations were taking advantage of American vessels and seamen, and Thomas Jefferson decided, hey, we don't wanna have trade with those countries. There were aspects of those that the Supreme Court, including some Jefferson appointees, decided were unconstitutional, but Jefferson just kinda kept executing the way he wanted to. You fast forward a few decades to the beginning of the Civil War. President Lincoln decided that, hey, there's some people causing some trouble and we need to detain them, and we know there's a constitutional right of habeas corpus that says that people should be allowed to go to court to decide whether the detention is legal, to decide whether they should be detained, but President Lincoln decided to suspend habeas corpus in certain parts of the country, which the Supreme Court was not happy with. But he decided to just go ahead with it with the argument that it was necessary to preserve the Union."}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There were aspects of those that the Supreme Court, including some Jefferson appointees, decided were unconstitutional, but Jefferson just kinda kept executing the way he wanted to. You fast forward a few decades to the beginning of the Civil War. President Lincoln decided that, hey, there's some people causing some trouble and we need to detain them, and we know there's a constitutional right of habeas corpus that says that people should be allowed to go to court to decide whether the detention is legal, to decide whether they should be detained, but President Lincoln decided to suspend habeas corpus in certain parts of the country, which the Supreme Court was not happy with. But he decided to just go ahead with it with the argument that it was necessary to preserve the Union. And perhaps the most famous example of a president not being happy with verdicts of the Supreme Court was FDR. As he took office in the midst of the Great Depression, there's a whole series of federal programs that he was trying to pass, and the Supreme Court started to strike down many of these, saying that, hey, this was not the role of the federal government, or this was overreaching by the executive. And so FDR was not happy with this, and so he actually proposed to the legislative branch the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which essentially said, hey, as soon as a Supreme Court justice is over 70 and a half years old, I should be able to appoint another Supreme Court justice up to six."}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But he decided to just go ahead with it with the argument that it was necessary to preserve the Union. And perhaps the most famous example of a president not being happy with verdicts of the Supreme Court was FDR. As he took office in the midst of the Great Depression, there's a whole series of federal programs that he was trying to pass, and the Supreme Court started to strike down many of these, saying that, hey, this was not the role of the federal government, or this was overreaching by the executive. And so FDR was not happy with this, and so he actually proposed to the legislative branch the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which essentially said, hey, as soon as a Supreme Court justice is over 70 and a half years old, I should be able to appoint another Supreme Court justice up to six. And it turns out that there were exactly six justices who had already reached that age, and so he essentially wanted to pack the Supreme Court with six new justices that would agree with him, that would allow him to do what he wanted. The legislative branch did not pass his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, but some historians think that it had the impact that he wanted, because it seems, and we don't know for sure, that after he even tried to do this, the judicial branch seemed more friendly to FDR. So maybe they said, hey, you know, maybe we don't wanna mess with this guy too much, because eventually he might be successful, instead of having nine Supreme Court justices, we'll have 15."}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so FDR was not happy with this, and so he actually proposed to the legislative branch the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which essentially said, hey, as soon as a Supreme Court justice is over 70 and a half years old, I should be able to appoint another Supreme Court justice up to six. And it turns out that there were exactly six justices who had already reached that age, and so he essentially wanted to pack the Supreme Court with six new justices that would agree with him, that would allow him to do what he wanted. The legislative branch did not pass his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, but some historians think that it had the impact that he wanted, because it seems, and we don't know for sure, that after he even tried to do this, the judicial branch seemed more friendly to FDR. So maybe they said, hey, you know, maybe we don't wanna mess with this guy too much, because eventually he might be successful, instead of having nine Supreme Court justices, we'll have 15. People sometimes call this the switch in time that saved nine. But to get an appreciation of how people thought about it, I have some political cartoons from the time, and these are fun to just pause and take a look at. So this says, Trying to Change the Umpiring."}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So maybe they said, hey, you know, maybe we don't wanna mess with this guy too much, because eventually he might be successful, instead of having nine Supreme Court justices, we'll have 15. People sometimes call this the switch in time that saved nine. But to get an appreciation of how people thought about it, I have some political cartoons from the time, and these are fun to just pause and take a look at. So this says, Trying to Change the Umpiring. So this is a Supreme Court President Roosevelt year, and he's saying, listen, I don't like your decisions. From now on, you're going to have to work with someone who can see things my way. And you can see all the different bats that he tried to use, and they were all ruled out by the umpire, the NRA, the AAA."}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this says, Trying to Change the Umpiring. So this is a Supreme Court President Roosevelt year, and he's saying, listen, I don't like your decisions. From now on, you're going to have to work with someone who can see things my way. And you can see all the different bats that he tried to use, and they were all ruled out by the umpire, the NRA, the AAA. These are all different government institutions or programs that FDR was trying to set up in order to fight the Great Depression as part of his New Deal. And they say, New Deal Acts Declared Unconstitutional. I have another political cartoon right over here, and it's from that same period in time."}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And you can see all the different bats that he tried to use, and they were all ruled out by the umpire, the NRA, the AAA. These are all different government institutions or programs that FDR was trying to set up in order to fight the Great Depression as part of his New Deal. And they say, New Deal Acts Declared Unconstitutional. I have another political cartoon right over here, and it's from that same period in time. Do we want a ventriloquist act in the Supreme Court? And you see Uncle Sam here, and then you have FDR, and it looks like he's got his hand controlling these puppets. It says, Yes, yes, we all vote yes."}, {"video_title": "Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I have another political cartoon right over here, and it's from that same period in time. Do we want a ventriloquist act in the Supreme Court? And you see Uncle Sam here, and then you have FDR, and it looks like he's got his hand controlling these puppets. It says, Yes, yes, we all vote yes. And even though FDR did not get his way with his court-packing plan, as it's sometimes called, let me write that down, his court-packing plan, as I mentioned, some historians believe that it did help influence the court, being a little bit friendlier to him. And a somewhat irony of it is, at the end of the day, because FDR served so many terms in office, he was able to make eight out of nine Supreme Court appointments. So in a lot of ways, he did determine the inclinations of the Supreme Court for many decades to come, well after his administration."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But does it have any relevance to our lives today? To learn more, I sought out the help of two experts. Jay Wexler is a professor of law at Boston University School of Law, specializing in constitutional law and the Supreme Court. Glenn Reynolds is the Beauchamp-Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law. So, Professor Reynolds, why did the framers feel it was necessary to put this amendment in the Bill of Rights? Well, we don't think of quartering of troops in people's homes is a very big issue these days. And of course, some people would say that's because the Third Amendment's worked perfectly, if only the rest of the Bill of Rights worked so well."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Glenn Reynolds is the Beauchamp-Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law. So, Professor Reynolds, why did the framers feel it was necessary to put this amendment in the Bill of Rights? Well, we don't think of quartering of troops in people's homes is a very big issue these days. And of course, some people would say that's because the Third Amendment's worked perfectly, if only the rest of the Bill of Rights worked so well. But it was a big issue for the framers because it had happened a lot. To the framers, the English Civil Wars of the 17th century were recent history, and their attitudes were very much shaped by that. And the Stuart kings in particular used quartering of troops as a way to punish towns and areas that they didn't like."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And of course, some people would say that's because the Third Amendment's worked perfectly, if only the rest of the Bill of Rights worked so well. But it was a big issue for the framers because it had happened a lot. To the framers, the English Civil Wars of the 17th century were recent history, and their attitudes were very much shaped by that. And the Stuart kings in particular used quartering of troops as a way to punish towns and areas that they didn't like. The soldiers back then were basically jail sweepings. They had a tendency to steal and to rape and to get into fights, even with the people they were quartered with. So it was, to have troops quartered upon a town was a way of sort of mass punishment."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the Stuart kings in particular used quartering of troops as a way to punish towns and areas that they didn't like. The soldiers back then were basically jail sweepings. They had a tendency to steal and to rape and to get into fights, even with the people they were quartered with. So it was, to have troops quartered upon a town was a way of sort of mass punishment. And that made the English rather unhappy. And after the Glorious Revolution, they banned the practice in England, but they did not ban it in the colony. The king had quartered troops in private homes in the colonies in what became the United States for a long time before the revolution, since at least 1670."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it was, to have troops quartered upon a town was a way of sort of mass punishment. And that made the English rather unhappy. And after the Glorious Revolution, they banned the practice in England, but they did not ban it in the colony. The king had quartered troops in private homes in the colonies in what became the United States for a long time before the revolution, since at least 1670. And as it's easy to imagine, this caused a lot of tension between the homeowners and the colonies and the British troops. And that had got even worse as we found ourselves in the French and Indian War in the 1750s and 1760s. Because nobody wants the government to put troops in their house."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The king had quartered troops in private homes in the colonies in what became the United States for a long time before the revolution, since at least 1670. And as it's easy to imagine, this caused a lot of tension between the homeowners and the colonies and the British troops. And that had got even worse as we found ourselves in the French and Indian War in the 1750s and 1760s. Because nobody wants the government to put troops in their house. The house is the place where people live their most private lives. And to have the government come in and say, here, the soldiers are gonna live here with you now, is something that understandably the colonists were very worried about and didn't like very much. So things got worse in the 1760s when England passed the First Quartering Act, which basically required the colonies had to provide barracks for the king's troops."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Because nobody wants the government to put troops in their house. The house is the place where people live their most private lives. And to have the government come in and say, here, the soldiers are gonna live here with you now, is something that understandably the colonists were very worried about and didn't like very much. So things got worse in the 1760s when England passed the First Quartering Act, which basically required the colonies had to provide barracks for the king's troops. And if there weren't barracks, then the soldiers were authorized to live in inns and ale houses and houses. This is right from the act itself, selling rum and brandy and strong water. And then if there weren't enough of those around, they could live in the private buildings, uninhabited houses and barns and things like this."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So things got worse in the 1760s when England passed the First Quartering Act, which basically required the colonies had to provide barracks for the king's troops. And if there weren't barracks, then the soldiers were authorized to live in inns and ale houses and houses. This is right from the act itself, selling rum and brandy and strong water. And then if there weren't enough of those around, they could live in the private buildings, uninhabited houses and barns and things like this. And that requirement resulted in part in the Stamp Act of 1765, which led then to the Tea Party, which everybody knows about. And the Tea Party really made the king angry. After that, the king passed, or the parliament passed the Second Quartering Act of 1774, which required colonists to allow the king's troops to live in their homes, which was of course, something that the colonists absolutely couldn't stand."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then if there weren't enough of those around, they could live in the private buildings, uninhabited houses and barns and things like this. And that requirement resulted in part in the Stamp Act of 1765, which led then to the Tea Party, which everybody knows about. And the Tea Party really made the king angry. After that, the king passed, or the parliament passed the Second Quartering Act of 1774, which required colonists to allow the king's troops to live in their homes, which was of course, something that the colonists absolutely couldn't stand. So when we got our independence, it was one of the most important goals of the framers to make sure that this kind of thing could not happen. So what was so problematic about the possibility of having a soldier quartered in your home or multiple soldiers quartered in your home? Well, some of us don't particularly like having house guests in general, but they're not house guests."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "After that, the king passed, or the parliament passed the Second Quartering Act of 1774, which required colonists to allow the king's troops to live in their homes, which was of course, something that the colonists absolutely couldn't stand. So when we got our independence, it was one of the most important goals of the framers to make sure that this kind of thing could not happen. So what was so problematic about the possibility of having a soldier quartered in your home or multiple soldiers quartered in your home? Well, some of us don't particularly like having house guests in general, but they're not house guests. I mean, the problem is, troops back then were not like, we think of soldiers today in the American army, it's hard to get in the army. People try to get in the army and they're told, go away, your grades aren't good enough and you're not smart enough. And if you have a criminal record, they don't want you."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, some of us don't particularly like having house guests in general, but they're not house guests. I mean, the problem is, troops back then were not like, we think of soldiers today in the American army, it's hard to get in the army. People try to get in the army and they're told, go away, your grades aren't good enough and you're not smart enough. And if you have a criminal record, they don't want you. It wasn't like that back then. Warfare was bloody and awful. The troops stood in masses of hundred yards from each other and blasted away with these brown vest muskets."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if you have a criminal record, they don't want you. It wasn't like that back then. Warfare was bloody and awful. The troops stood in masses of hundred yards from each other and blasted away with these brown vest muskets. Actually, the most common injury then was when pieces of the soldier next to you were driven into you, jawbone and stuff like that. So it was pretty nasty and the discipline that it took to make people do that was pretty harsh and it wasn't very appealing to the better sort. So literally, a lot of these soldiers were people who were sent there straight from jail."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The troops stood in masses of hundred yards from each other and blasted away with these brown vest muskets. Actually, the most common injury then was when pieces of the soldier next to you were driven into you, jawbone and stuff like that. So it was pretty nasty and the discipline that it took to make people do that was pretty harsh and it wasn't very appealing to the better sort. So literally, a lot of these soldiers were people who were sent there straight from jail. So they were not very nice people to have living in your house and they didn't have a very good attitude when they did. I think they were widely viewed as being cruel, as being unfriendly, maybe even drunk a lot. But it was certainly not the case that they were making their own beds and cleaning up after their dinner and such like that."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So literally, a lot of these soldiers were people who were sent there straight from jail. So they were not very nice people to have living in your house and they didn't have a very good attitude when they did. I think they were widely viewed as being cruel, as being unfriendly, maybe even drunk a lot. But it was certainly not the case that they were making their own beds and cleaning up after their dinner and such like that. So they were not guests. They were people who were living in the houses, taking liberties any way they wanted and making basically a nuisance of themselves for sure. So I mean, imagine if some soldier you didn't know and you didn't invite into your house was all of a sudden staying in your living room and then multiply that by however many soldiers it might be, 10, who knows, living in your living room while you're trying to carry out the daily tasks of your life and talking with your children and making plans about dinner."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it was certainly not the case that they were making their own beds and cleaning up after their dinner and such like that. So they were not guests. They were people who were living in the houses, taking liberties any way they wanted and making basically a nuisance of themselves for sure. So I mean, imagine if some soldier you didn't know and you didn't invite into your house was all of a sudden staying in your living room and then multiply that by however many soldiers it might be, 10, who knows, living in your living room while you're trying to carry out the daily tasks of your life and talking with your children and making plans about dinner. And can you imagine how offensive that would be and how problematic that would be to have the government's troops hanging out in your living room. It would be pretty awful. So it's no surprise that the framers, I think, objected to this and put this amendment into the constitution."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So I mean, imagine if some soldier you didn't know and you didn't invite into your house was all of a sudden staying in your living room and then multiply that by however many soldiers it might be, 10, who knows, living in your living room while you're trying to carry out the daily tasks of your life and talking with your children and making plans about dinner. And can you imagine how offensive that would be and how problematic that would be to have the government's troops hanging out in your living room. It would be pretty awful. So it's no surprise that the framers, I think, objected to this and put this amendment into the constitution. So do you think that the Quartering Act of 1774, do you think that was the straw that broke the camel's back in the American Revolution? Was it that living with soldiers was just so noxious that it propelled the colonists over the edge into the revolution? Well, you know, there were a lot of straws that broke that camel's back, so it's hard to say which one."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So it's no surprise that the framers, I think, objected to this and put this amendment into the constitution. So do you think that the Quartering Act of 1774, do you think that was the straw that broke the camel's back in the American Revolution? Was it that living with soldiers was just so noxious that it propelled the colonists over the edge into the revolution? Well, you know, there were a lot of straws that broke that camel's back, so it's hard to say which one. But I think one of the things that the colonists hated about it was that they were being subjected to a rule that didn't apply in England. And one of the things they revolted for, remember, was they thought they'd been deprived of what they called the rights of Englishmen. And this was just another example of the crowd feeling free to do things in the colonies that it wouldn't do at home."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, you know, there were a lot of straws that broke that camel's back, so it's hard to say which one. But I think one of the things that the colonists hated about it was that they were being subjected to a rule that didn't apply in England. And one of the things they revolted for, remember, was they thought they'd been deprived of what they called the rights of Englishmen. And this was just another example of the crowd feeling free to do things in the colonies that it wouldn't do at home. And that sent a signal to the colonists that you're not as important, you're not full-blown citizens, we don't care about you as much, and you don't have the same rights. And I think that was what was intolerable about it. So this seems like an amendment that has this very specific historical background."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this was just another example of the crowd feeling free to do things in the colonies that it wouldn't do at home. And that sent a signal to the colonists that you're not as important, you're not full-blown citizens, we don't care about you as much, and you don't have the same rights. And I think that was what was intolerable about it. So this seems like an amendment that has this very specific historical background. But how does this kind of play forward into the future? Was there any danger that there might be a later quartering of soldiers after the framing of the Constitution? Well, there was always the risk."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this seems like an amendment that has this very specific historical background. But how does this kind of play forward into the future? Was there any danger that there might be a later quartering of soldiers after the framing of the Constitution? Well, there was always the risk. There was always the risk that even in the independent United States that the government might at some point require homeowners to put up soldiers. And in fact, there's some evidence that during the Civil War this happened. I think the evidence is a little foggy, but there's certainly a suggestion in the literature that the Union government required homeowners to put up Union troops."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, there was always the risk. There was always the risk that even in the independent United States that the government might at some point require homeowners to put up soldiers. And in fact, there's some evidence that during the Civil War this happened. I think the evidence is a little foggy, but there's certainly a suggestion in the literature that the Union government required homeowners to put up Union troops. And so it could have been a problem. It's not something that has in fact turned into a huge issue over time, which might say something about how successful the Third Amendment has been in our history. But it was always a risk."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I think the evidence is a little foggy, but there's certainly a suggestion in the literature that the Union government required homeowners to put up Union troops. And so it could have been a problem. It's not something that has in fact turned into a huge issue over time, which might say something about how successful the Third Amendment has been in our history. But it was always a risk. I think it was never far from the minds of the framers, this possibility that the government might decide to put its soldiers into people's private homes. I think at the time of the revolution and when the framers were putting together the Constitution, they had a real fear of standing armies, right? They didn't want a standing army in the United States."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But it was always a risk. I think it was never far from the minds of the framers, this possibility that the government might decide to put its soldiers into people's private homes. I think at the time of the revolution and when the framers were putting together the Constitution, they had a real fear of standing armies, right? They didn't want a standing army in the United States. In fact, there wasn't one in the United States at all, a professional army until after the Civil War, I believe. And now we see a standing army, a very large standing army of the United States as being pretty normal. How do you think the Third Amendment shows how our ideas of standing armies have changed over time?"}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They didn't want a standing army in the United States. In fact, there wasn't one in the United States at all, a professional army until after the Civil War, I believe. And now we see a standing army, a very large standing army of the United States as being pretty normal. How do you think the Third Amendment shows how our ideas of standing armies have changed over time? You know, one historian said that our framers had an almost panic fear of standing armies. And that was based again on the history of the English Civil Wars in the 17th century, where standing armies, you know, the tradition was the king would disarm people he didn't like and then use the army against them. And that was seen as very bad."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "How do you think the Third Amendment shows how our ideas of standing armies have changed over time? You know, one historian said that our framers had an almost panic fear of standing armies. And that was based again on the history of the English Civil Wars in the 17th century, where standing armies, you know, the tradition was the king would disarm people he didn't like and then use the army against them. And that was seen as very bad. Standing armies were seen as somebody who was loyal to who paid them, not to the country. I think our army has had a different trajectory. I mean, really, we didn't have a large standing army in the United States on a regular basis until after World War II."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And that was seen as very bad. Standing armies were seen as somebody who was loyal to who paid them, not to the country. I think our army has had a different trajectory. I mean, really, we didn't have a large standing army in the United States on a regular basis until after World War II. So I think we're just less afraid of it because our army has been more professional, maybe because we feel like the army is more loyal to citizens than it is to who pays it. Or maybe because we've just lost perhaps a vital edge of paranoia that the framers had. Has there ever been a Supreme Court case that ruled based on the Third Amendment?"}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I mean, really, we didn't have a large standing army in the United States on a regular basis until after World War II. So I think we're just less afraid of it because our army has been more professional, maybe because we feel like the army is more loyal to citizens than it is to who pays it. Or maybe because we've just lost perhaps a vital edge of paranoia that the framers had. Has there ever been a Supreme Court case that ruled based on the Third Amendment? There's a single federal court of appeals case called Engblom against Kerry, where the federal court of appeals applied the Third Amendment in a New York prison riot case where guards were pushed out of their barracks and national guardsmen were put in. But the Supreme Court's never done it. But the Supreme Court has relied on the Third Amendment."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Has there ever been a Supreme Court case that ruled based on the Third Amendment? There's a single federal court of appeals case called Engblom against Kerry, where the federal court of appeals applied the Third Amendment in a New York prison riot case where guards were pushed out of their barracks and national guardsmen were put in. But the Supreme Court's never done it. But the Supreme Court has relied on the Third Amendment. In fact, one of the most famous cases of the second half of the 20th century from the Warren Court was Griswold against Connecticut. That was actually a case striking down laws against birth control. Which was one of the forerunners to Roe versus Wade."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the Supreme Court has relied on the Third Amendment. In fact, one of the most famous cases of the second half of the 20th century from the Warren Court was Griswold against Connecticut. That was actually a case striking down laws against birth control. Which was one of the forerunners to Roe versus Wade. And in that case, the Supreme Court was trying to figure out if the Constitution encompassed a right to privacy. And Justice Douglas wrote this opinion, which said that there were kind of penumbras or emanations from a variety of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, and importantly, the Third Amendment that suggested that the Constitution does protect privacy rights to some degree. That was kind of the high point for the Third Amendment in Supreme Court history."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Which was one of the forerunners to Roe versus Wade. And in that case, the Supreme Court was trying to figure out if the Constitution encompassed a right to privacy. And Justice Douglas wrote this opinion, which said that there were kind of penumbras or emanations from a variety of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, and importantly, the Third Amendment that suggested that the Constitution does protect privacy rights to some degree. That was kind of the high point for the Third Amendment in Supreme Court history. And even in the cases that followed the Griswold decision, which found, for example, the right to an abortion, et cetera, the court did not rely on that Third Amendment penumbra theory. So it was one case the Supreme Court cited the Third Amendment as being the source of a sort of enigmatic privacy right. Other than that, the Supreme Court has really not touched the Third Amendment ever."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That was kind of the high point for the Third Amendment in Supreme Court history. And even in the cases that followed the Griswold decision, which found, for example, the right to an abortion, et cetera, the court did not rely on that Third Amendment penumbra theory. So it was one case the Supreme Court cited the Third Amendment as being the source of a sort of enigmatic privacy right. Other than that, the Supreme Court has really not touched the Third Amendment ever. So there's kind of a suggestion of the right to privacy that goes along with the Third Amendment and also perhaps the Fourth Amendment. Do you think that's the way that the Third Amendment is perhaps most relevant to us now? Well, it could be."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Other than that, the Supreme Court has really not touched the Third Amendment ever. So there's kind of a suggestion of the right to privacy that goes along with the Third Amendment and also perhaps the Fourth Amendment. Do you think that's the way that the Third Amendment is perhaps most relevant to us now? Well, it could be. I mean, there's been some thought, there've been some Law Review articles and other speculation of this, that for example, when the government installs spyware on your computer at home, that's the equivalent of quartering troops in your house because somebody is inside your house spying on you and breaking your privacy, sort of like having to have a soldier at home. No court's held that as far as I know, but it's not crazy. And there've been a few other cases more on point where people claim that when police SWAT teams took over their homes to look down on the neighbors and such, that that was troop quartering, but courts so far have said that's not the same thing since they're not actually sleeping there."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, it could be. I mean, there's been some thought, there've been some Law Review articles and other speculation of this, that for example, when the government installs spyware on your computer at home, that's the equivalent of quartering troops in your house because somebody is inside your house spying on you and breaking your privacy, sort of like having to have a soldier at home. No court's held that as far as I know, but it's not crazy. And there've been a few other cases more on point where people claim that when police SWAT teams took over their homes to look down on the neighbors and such, that that was troop quartering, but courts so far have said that's not the same thing since they're not actually sleeping there. One possibility is to say, hey, the Third Amendment really plays no role. It's the courts don't talk about it. Nobody really knows much about what it says."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And there've been a few other cases more on point where people claim that when police SWAT teams took over their homes to look down on the neighbors and such, that that was troop quartering, but courts so far have said that's not the same thing since they're not actually sleeping there. One possibility is to say, hey, the Third Amendment really plays no role. It's the courts don't talk about it. Nobody really knows much about what it says. And so it's really not important. On the other hand, you could argue, and I suggest that this is probably a plausible argument that in fact, the Third Amendment has done a lot. The fact that you don't see cases about quartering of troops may very well indicate how well the Third Amendment is serving it."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Nobody really knows much about what it says. And so it's really not important. On the other hand, you could argue, and I suggest that this is probably a plausible argument that in fact, the Third Amendment has done a lot. The fact that you don't see cases about quartering of troops may very well indicate how well the Third Amendment is serving it. So the Third Amendment just is quiet, but that's because it's doing its job so well. And then nobody comes and tries to quarter troops in anybody's houses. And if they did, they would immediately lose."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The fact that you don't see cases about quartering of troops may very well indicate how well the Third Amendment is serving it. So the Third Amendment just is quiet, but that's because it's doing its job so well. And then nobody comes and tries to quarter troops in anybody's houses. And if they did, they would immediately lose. So you could argue from that perspective that the Third Amendment is one of the most powerful and well-working amendments that we have in the Constitution. One thing that's interesting about constitutional history is that sometimes we see parts of the Constitution that have been dormant for a really long time, all of a sudden pop up into consciousness, either because the courts have started reading them differently or because the facts of the world change. And so all of a sudden the amendment or other constitutional provision seems relevant."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if they did, they would immediately lose. So you could argue from that perspective that the Third Amendment is one of the most powerful and well-working amendments that we have in the Constitution. One thing that's interesting about constitutional history is that sometimes we see parts of the Constitution that have been dormant for a really long time, all of a sudden pop up into consciousness, either because the courts have started reading them differently or because the facts of the world change. And so all of a sudden the amendment or other constitutional provision seems relevant. And that could potentially happen with the Third Amendment. And what I would cite here are two developments in the world. One is that we've seen these days the police becoming more militarized."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so all of a sudden the amendment or other constitutional provision seems relevant. And that could potentially happen with the Third Amendment. And what I would cite here are two developments in the world. One is that we've seen these days the police becoming more militarized. And so it looks kind of like the police are soldiers in a way when they come all armed and with their armored vehicles and such. And the second phenomenon is kind of the increased surveillance that we're seeing from the government into private phone conversations, private computer files and things like that. And so it's possible that we, a court at some point might think that the government is violating, if not the letter, then the spirit of the Third Amendment by basically engaging in the 21st century version of quartering by monitoring people's communications within the home in a kind of militaristic way."}, {"video_title": "The Third Amendment   The National Constitution Center   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One is that we've seen these days the police becoming more militarized. And so it looks kind of like the police are soldiers in a way when they come all armed and with their armored vehicles and such. And the second phenomenon is kind of the increased surveillance that we're seeing from the government into private phone conversations, private computer files and things like that. And so it's possible that we, a court at some point might think that the government is violating, if not the letter, then the spirit of the Third Amendment by basically engaging in the 21st century version of quartering by monitoring people's communications within the home in a kind of militaristic way. So we've learned that the Third Amendment prevents the government from quartering soldiers in the homes of American citizens. And that in fact, it does such a good job, the Supreme Court has only made one decision using the Third Amendment as its primary basis. But the Third Amendment's implied guarantee of privacy in the home may come to be more important as we debate the limits of government surveillance of our computers."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This case was decided in 1803, and it established the principle of judicial review, that the Supreme Court has the power to review the constitutionality of acts made by Congress or the president, and overturn those actions that it judges to be inconsistent with the Constitution. To learn more about Marbury versus Madison, I sought out the help of two experts. Michael Klarman is a legal historian and the Kirkland and Ellis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Kevin Walsh is a Professor of Law at the University of Richmond Law School. So, Professor Walsh, can you tell us a little bit about what was happening in this case? Could you set the stage? Sure, you're right, the case wasn't decided until 1803, but to understand where it came from, you really have to go back to the election of 1800."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Kevin Walsh is a Professor of Law at the University of Richmond Law School. So, Professor Walsh, can you tell us a little bit about what was happening in this case? Could you set the stage? Sure, you're right, the case wasn't decided until 1803, but to understand where it came from, you really have to go back to the election of 1800. And this election pitted John Adams, the incumbent Federalist President, against his former Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic Republican. And long story short, Jefferson ended up being President, and we've skipped a lot of really interesting things there, but Jefferson ultimately won. The Federalists who controlled Congress seeing what was happening, made a present for the incoming administration in the form of some laws that created some new judgeships, so some new federal judges, as well as some Justices of the Peace in the District of Columbia."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Sure, you're right, the case wasn't decided until 1803, but to understand where it came from, you really have to go back to the election of 1800. And this election pitted John Adams, the incumbent Federalist President, against his former Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic Republican. And long story short, Jefferson ended up being President, and we've skipped a lot of really interesting things there, but Jefferson ultimately won. The Federalists who controlled Congress seeing what was happening, made a present for the incoming administration in the form of some laws that created some new judgeships, so some new federal judges, as well as some Justices of the Peace in the District of Columbia. And then they proceeded to stuff those offices with loyal Federalists, and these were people like William Marbury, who was granted a commission as Justice of the Peace in DC. Marbury was appointed by the Federalist President, the outgoing Federalist President, John Adams, to be a Justice of the Peace in Washington, DC. But John Marshall, who was both Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the United States under John Adams, he didn't have a chance to deliver the commission because these were midnight judges who were appointed almost at the last minute as the Adams administration was going out the door."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Federalists who controlled Congress seeing what was happening, made a present for the incoming administration in the form of some laws that created some new judgeships, so some new federal judges, as well as some Justices of the Peace in the District of Columbia. And then they proceeded to stuff those offices with loyal Federalists, and these were people like William Marbury, who was granted a commission as Justice of the Peace in DC. Marbury was appointed by the Federalist President, the outgoing Federalist President, John Adams, to be a Justice of the Peace in Washington, DC. But John Marshall, who was both Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the United States under John Adams, he didn't have a chance to deliver the commission because these were midnight judges who were appointed almost at the last minute as the Adams administration was going out the door. So the commission for Marbury was still sitting on the desk of the new Secretary of State, James Madison, when the Jefferson administration took over, and the Jeffersonians were outraged by what they saw as an effort to pack the judiciary by the outgoing administration, so they were refusing to deliver the commission. Marbury wants his commission, so he brings a lawsuit in the United States Supreme Court demanding that Secretary of State James Madison deliver the commission to him, and that's what leads to the case Marbury versus Madison. So really, this is a case about some men trying to get the jobs that President Adams had appointed them to, but that they weren't able to get because President Jefferson and his administration refused to deliver the piece of paper entitling them to actually take the job."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But John Marshall, who was both Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the United States under John Adams, he didn't have a chance to deliver the commission because these were midnight judges who were appointed almost at the last minute as the Adams administration was going out the door. So the commission for Marbury was still sitting on the desk of the new Secretary of State, James Madison, when the Jefferson administration took over, and the Jeffersonians were outraged by what they saw as an effort to pack the judiciary by the outgoing administration, so they were refusing to deliver the commission. Marbury wants his commission, so he brings a lawsuit in the United States Supreme Court demanding that Secretary of State James Madison deliver the commission to him, and that's what leads to the case Marbury versus Madison. So really, this is a case about some men trying to get the jobs that President Adams had appointed them to, but that they weren't able to get because President Jefferson and his administration refused to deliver the piece of paper entitling them to actually take the job. Very interesting. So this election of 1800, I think, is very significant in American history because it was the first peaceful transfer of power between two political parties, the Federalists, kind of led by John Adams, who had this stronger central government as one of their core ideals, and then the Anti-Federalists or Democratic Republicans led by Madison and Jefferson, who wanted a weaker central government, more power to the states. So I think it's one of the coolest things in American history that a political party voluntarily gave up power."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So really, this is a case about some men trying to get the jobs that President Adams had appointed them to, but that they weren't able to get because President Jefferson and his administration refused to deliver the piece of paper entitling them to actually take the job. Very interesting. So this election of 1800, I think, is very significant in American history because it was the first peaceful transfer of power between two political parties, the Federalists, kind of led by John Adams, who had this stronger central government as one of their core ideals, and then the Anti-Federalists or Democratic Republicans led by Madison and Jefferson, who wanted a weaker central government, more power to the states. So I think it's one of the coolest things in American history that a political party voluntarily gave up power. Like, when else in the history of the world did a ruling party just say, ah, you know what, now our enemies can rule? But there's also this political fallout from this transfer of power between parties. And this is the first time that the Jeffersonian Republicans are gonna be able to take control of the national government and the Federalists, the outgoing Adams administration, are horrified by this."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So I think it's one of the coolest things in American history that a political party voluntarily gave up power. Like, when else in the history of the world did a ruling party just say, ah, you know what, now our enemies can rule? But there's also this political fallout from this transfer of power between parties. And this is the first time that the Jeffersonian Republicans are gonna be able to take control of the national government and the Federalists, the outgoing Adams administration, are horrified by this. They think of Jefferson as an anarchist, an atheist. They accuse him during the campaign of being a miscegenator. They allege, it turns out correctly, that he sleeps with his slaves."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this is the first time that the Jeffersonian Republicans are gonna be able to take control of the national government and the Federalists, the outgoing Adams administration, are horrified by this. They think of Jefferson as an anarchist, an atheist. They accuse him during the campaign of being a miscegenator. They allege, it turns out correctly, that he sleeps with his slaves. They allege that in New England he'll be stealing their Bibles if elected. And the Jeffersonians don't think much better of John Adams. They think he wants to be a king."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They allege, it turns out correctly, that he sleeps with his slaves. They allege that in New England he'll be stealing their Bibles if elected. And the Jeffersonians don't think much better of John Adams. They think he wants to be a king. He nearly got the country into an unnecessary war with France. So there's tremendous political animosity. Neither side really sees the opposite side as the loyal political opposition."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They think he wants to be a king. He nearly got the country into an unnecessary war with France. So there's tremendous political animosity. Neither side really sees the opposite side as the loyal political opposition. And then there's personal acrimony as well. Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall, both from Virginia, are distant cousins. They hate each other."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Neither side really sees the opposite side as the loyal political opposition. And then there's personal acrimony as well. Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall, both from Virginia, are distant cousins. They hate each other. John Marshall certainly didn't think Jefferson ought to be elected president in 1800. And Jefferson thinks that John Marshall, as chief justice, is trying to undermine the Federal Republic through his nationalist rulings on the Supreme Court. Well, it wasn't a pretty transfer."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They hate each other. John Marshall certainly didn't think Jefferson ought to be elected president in 1800. And Jefferson thinks that John Marshall, as chief justice, is trying to undermine the Federal Republic through his nationalist rulings on the Supreme Court. Well, it wasn't a pretty transfer. John Adams left in a huff the morning that Jefferson was going to be inaugurated. But it was, as you say, it was a peaceful transition. But the thing is, is a lot of the issues that come with transferring power from one political party to another, these were new issues for the country."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, it wasn't a pretty transfer. John Adams left in a huff the morning that Jefferson was going to be inaugurated. But it was, as you say, it was a peaceful transition. But the thing is, is a lot of the issues that come with transferring power from one political party to another, these were new issues for the country. And understandably, the Jefferson administration resented the Federalist's attempt to put their loyalists into the judiciary. The Jeffersonians have won the presidential election. They've won the congressional elections by even more."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the thing is, is a lot of the issues that come with transferring power from one political party to another, these were new issues for the country. And understandably, the Jefferson administration resented the Federalist's attempt to put their loyalists into the judiciary. The Jeffersonians have won the presidential election. They've won the congressional elections by even more. The only branch of the federal government still controlled by the Federalists is the judiciary. And now they're packing the judiciary. They're creating 16 new Federal Court of Appeals judges, 42 new Justices of the Peace."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They've won the congressional elections by even more. The only branch of the federal government still controlled by the Federalists is the judiciary. And now they're packing the judiciary. They're creating 16 new Federal Court of Appeals judges, 42 new Justices of the Peace. They're actually diminishing the size of the Supreme Court from six to five, so as to deprive Jefferson of an opportunity to appoint a new justice for one of those who is retiring. This is outrageous. And Jefferson also thinks it's outrageous that Marbury has filed a suit in the Supreme Court and has asked the Supreme Court to order the President of the United States to do something, which Jefferson thinks is a violation of the separation of powers."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They're creating 16 new Federal Court of Appeals judges, 42 new Justices of the Peace. They're actually diminishing the size of the Supreme Court from six to five, so as to deprive Jefferson of an opportunity to appoint a new justice for one of those who is retiring. This is outrageous. And Jefferson also thinks it's outrageous that Marbury has filed a suit in the Supreme Court and has asked the Supreme Court to order the President of the United States to do something, which Jefferson thinks is a violation of the separation of powers. Right, so William Marbury is one of these judges that John Adams had appointed in the midnight hour. He decides to sue, and this is directly to the Supreme Court, right, because it's in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Okay, so he sues directly in the Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And Jefferson also thinks it's outrageous that Marbury has filed a suit in the Supreme Court and has asked the Supreme Court to order the President of the United States to do something, which Jefferson thinks is a violation of the separation of powers. Right, so William Marbury is one of these judges that John Adams had appointed in the midnight hour. He decides to sue, and this is directly to the Supreme Court, right, because it's in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Okay, so he sues directly in the Supreme Court. Right now, we think of the Supreme Court generally as a court that hears appeals, right? Usually you don't go there in the first instance. But as we said, this was a new thing, and it was also new to be suing the executive branch."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay, so he sues directly in the Supreme Court. Right now, we think of the Supreme Court generally as a court that hears appeals, right? Usually you don't go there in the first instance. But as we said, this was a new thing, and it was also new to be suing the executive branch. So it makes sense, if you think about it, if you're going after the President and the President's Secretary of State to go directly to the Supreme Court. Marbury brought the suit in the Supreme Court, but the question in the case is whether the Supreme Court can hear this within its constitutional original jurisdiction. So under the Article III of the Constitution, at least as John Marshall chooses to interpret it in Marbury versus Madison, this particular case can't be in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But as we said, this was a new thing, and it was also new to be suing the executive branch. So it makes sense, if you think about it, if you're going after the President and the President's Secretary of State to go directly to the Supreme Court. Marbury brought the suit in the Supreme Court, but the question in the case is whether the Supreme Court can hear this within its constitutional original jurisdiction. So under the Article III of the Constitution, at least as John Marshall chooses to interpret it in Marbury versus Madison, this particular case can't be in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. It could only be filed somewhere else and then appealed to the Supreme Court. So John Marshall's a pretty big figure in the history of the Supreme Court. Can you tell us just a little bit more about who he is and why he's so important?"}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So under the Article III of the Constitution, at least as John Marshall chooses to interpret it in Marbury versus Madison, this particular case can't be in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. It could only be filed somewhere else and then appealed to the Supreme Court. So John Marshall's a pretty big figure in the history of the Supreme Court. Can you tell us just a little bit more about who he is and why he's so important? Sure, he is still the longest serving Chief Justice. John Marshall was Chief Justice from 1801 to 1835. He was appointed by President Adams in early 1801."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Can you tell us just a little bit more about who he is and why he's so important? Sure, he is still the longest serving Chief Justice. John Marshall was Chief Justice from 1801 to 1835. He was appointed by President Adams in early 1801. This was one of the final acts of Adams' administration, and he went on to say that it was the proudest thing he had done for the American people. Marshall was a Federalist from Virginia. So this made him a little bit odd because the leading political figures in Virginia were Democratic Republicans."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He was appointed by President Adams in early 1801. This was one of the final acts of Adams' administration, and he went on to say that it was the proudest thing he had done for the American people. Marshall was a Federalist from Virginia. So this made him a little bit odd because the leading political figures in Virginia were Democratic Republicans. But Marshall had been a soldier in the Continental Army. He was at Valley Forge with Washington and with Hamilton. And his experiences under the Continental Congress and under the Articles of Confederation, and then later serving in state government in Virginia, made him realize that we needed a much stronger national government."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this made him a little bit odd because the leading political figures in Virginia were Democratic Republicans. But Marshall had been a soldier in the Continental Army. He was at Valley Forge with Washington and with Hamilton. And his experiences under the Continental Congress and under the Articles of Confederation, and then later serving in state government in Virginia, made him realize that we needed a much stronger national government. And that's what turned him into a Federalist. So he was really in the mold of Washington and Hamilton. And so this put him at odds with the new President Jefferson when Jefferson took office."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And his experiences under the Continental Congress and under the Articles of Confederation, and then later serving in state government in Virginia, made him realize that we needed a much stronger national government. And that's what turned him into a Federalist. So he was really in the mold of Washington and Hamilton. And so this put him at odds with the new President Jefferson when Jefferson took office. Nevertheless, over the course of the three and a half decades that he was on the Supreme Court, Marshall gained a reputation for being above politics, above party, and he was really successful in bringing the court together as an institution to speak, usually with one voice, for the Constitution. So his great success was to identify himself with the court, to identify the court with the Constitution, and to identify the Constitution with the people. All right, so Marbury sues for his commission as a federal judge, and then Marshall and the Supreme Court are tasked with this issue of figuring out whether Marbury should get his commission or not."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so this put him at odds with the new President Jefferson when Jefferson took office. Nevertheless, over the course of the three and a half decades that he was on the Supreme Court, Marshall gained a reputation for being above politics, above party, and he was really successful in bringing the court together as an institution to speak, usually with one voice, for the Constitution. So his great success was to identify himself with the court, to identify the court with the Constitution, and to identify the Constitution with the people. All right, so Marbury sues for his commission as a federal judge, and then Marshall and the Supreme Court are tasked with this issue of figuring out whether Marbury should get his commission or not. So can you take us through Marshall's thinking? How did he reason his way to the answer in this case? So there are two different dimensions to Marshall's thinking."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "All right, so Marbury sues for his commission as a federal judge, and then Marshall and the Supreme Court are tasked with this issue of figuring out whether Marbury should get his commission or not. So can you take us through Marshall's thinking? How did he reason his way to the answer in this case? So there are two different dimensions to Marshall's thinking. One is the dimension of a lawyer, and the other is the dimension of a political strategist. Marshall understands that if he issues an order to the Jefferson administration to deliver the commission, he will be defied. He knows that almost to a certainty."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So there are two different dimensions to Marshall's thinking. One is the dimension of a lawyer, and the other is the dimension of a political strategist. Marshall understands that if he issues an order to the Jefferson administration to deliver the commission, he will be defied. He knows that almost to a certainty. James Madison has refused even to show up in court in response to an order to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be issued. So mandamus is from the same root as mandatory or mandate, right? It's an order."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He knows that almost to a certainty. James Madison has refused even to show up in court in response to an order to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be issued. So mandamus is from the same root as mandatory or mandate, right? It's an order. And here the issue was, did the judiciary have the power, using this writ of mandamus, to order the Secretary of State to do something? So Marshall has to figure out what can he do that isn't gonna make the court look hopelessly weak. If he just says there's no jurisdiction, then people are gonna think he's supine and he's afraid to challenge the president."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's an order. And here the issue was, did the judiciary have the power, using this writ of mandamus, to order the Secretary of State to do something? So Marshall has to figure out what can he do that isn't gonna make the court look hopelessly weak. If he just says there's no jurisdiction, then people are gonna think he's supine and he's afraid to challenge the president. But if he orders the president to deliver the commission, which is what he'd like to do, he knows Jefferson will defy him, and he has no authority, he has no enforcement capacity, so then the court will just look impotent. So what he wants to do instead is he wants to act by indirection. The first thing he says is the president's not above the law."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If he just says there's no jurisdiction, then people are gonna think he's supine and he's afraid to challenge the president. But if he orders the president to deliver the commission, which is what he'd like to do, he knows Jefferson will defy him, and he has no authority, he has no enforcement capacity, so then the court will just look impotent. So what he wants to do instead is he wants to act by indirection. The first thing he says is the president's not above the law. The president can be mandamus. The second thing he says is, in this particular case, a writ of mandamus would be the appropriate remedy. But the third thing he says is, I have to ask whether I have jurisdiction in this case."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The first thing he says is the president's not above the law. The president can be mandamus. The second thing he says is, in this particular case, a writ of mandamus would be the appropriate remedy. But the third thing he says is, I have to ask whether I have jurisdiction in this case. The problem is, the list of cases in the Constitution that can be heard by the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction did not include cases like Marbury's. So this was a problem, because Congress had passed a law purportedly telling the Supreme Court that it could hear cases like this. Ah, okay."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the third thing he says is, I have to ask whether I have jurisdiction in this case. The problem is, the list of cases in the Constitution that can be heard by the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction did not include cases like Marbury's. So this was a problem, because Congress had passed a law purportedly telling the Supreme Court that it could hear cases like this. Ah, okay. That's what Marbury was relying on, right? He wasn't just thinking, oh, I'm gonna go to the biggest court in the country. He was relying on a federal statute that seemed to give the court jurisdiction."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Ah, okay. That's what Marbury was relying on, right? He wasn't just thinking, oh, I'm gonna go to the biggest court in the country. He was relying on a federal statute that seemed to give the court jurisdiction. But Marshall said that statute conflicts with what the Constitution says. It goes beyond the limits set for this court in the Constitution. And when you have a conflict between the Constitution and a federal law, or any law, the Constitution wins."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He was relying on a federal statute that seemed to give the court jurisdiction. But Marshall said that statute conflicts with what the Constitution says. It goes beyond the limits set for this court in the Constitution. And when you have a conflict between the Constitution and a federal law, or any law, the Constitution wins. Right, so this is the principle that has been called judicial review. The idea is you have to review the laws to make sure they comply with the Constitution. And if a law is unconstitutional, it can't be enforced by the Supreme Court."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And when you have a conflict between the Constitution and a federal law, or any law, the Constitution wins. Right, so this is the principle that has been called judicial review. The idea is you have to review the laws to make sure they comply with the Constitution. And if a law is unconstitutional, it can't be enforced by the Supreme Court. So it's a long way of saying that Marbury lost because the court didn't have jurisdiction. The court didn't have jurisdiction because the law that said it had jurisdiction was unconstitutional. Wow, okay, so there's a lot going on here, but one of the big takeaways is this notion of judicial review, or the idea that the Constitution wins and it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether that's the case."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if a law is unconstitutional, it can't be enforced by the Supreme Court. So it's a long way of saying that Marbury lost because the court didn't have jurisdiction. The court didn't have jurisdiction because the law that said it had jurisdiction was unconstitutional. Wow, okay, so there's a lot going on here, but one of the big takeaways is this notion of judicial review, or the idea that the Constitution wins and it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether that's the case. Can you talk more about the effects of judicial review? How does it check the power of the other branches of government? In order for a law to be enforced against anybody, all three branches of the government have to have taken some kind of action."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Wow, okay, so there's a lot going on here, but one of the big takeaways is this notion of judicial review, or the idea that the Constitution wins and it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether that's the case. Can you talk more about the effects of judicial review? How does it check the power of the other branches of government? In order for a law to be enforced against anybody, all three branches of the government have to have taken some kind of action. So Congress had to have passed a law and the president has to sign it. Then the law has to be enforced against somebody in a way that gives rise to a legal case. And then the judiciary gets the final word in that legal case as to whether the law is constitutional."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In order for a law to be enforced against anybody, all three branches of the government have to have taken some kind of action. So Congress had to have passed a law and the president has to sign it. Then the law has to be enforced against somebody in a way that gives rise to a legal case. And then the judiciary gets the final word in that legal case as to whether the law is constitutional. So the one way that judicial review operates as a check on the president and the executive is providing a backstop against the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. So when the courts strike down President Trump's travel ban, that's judicial review, or when the Supreme Court said President Truman exceeded his authority in ordering the seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War, that's judicial review. Or when the Supreme Court recently almost struck down the Affordable Care Act, that would be an exercise of judicial review."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then the judiciary gets the final word in that legal case as to whether the law is constitutional. So the one way that judicial review operates as a check on the president and the executive is providing a backstop against the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. So when the courts strike down President Trump's travel ban, that's judicial review, or when the Supreme Court said President Truman exceeded his authority in ordering the seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War, that's judicial review. Or when the Supreme Court recently almost struck down the Affordable Care Act, that would be an exercise of judicial review. Interesting. So this case, and perhaps just Marshall as Chief Justice in general, made the court, I think, much more powerful than it had been. Do you think this new power for the court or expansion of power for the court would have surprised the framers?"}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or when the Supreme Court recently almost struck down the Affordable Care Act, that would be an exercise of judicial review. Interesting. So this case, and perhaps just Marshall as Chief Justice in general, made the court, I think, much more powerful than it had been. Do you think this new power for the court or expansion of power for the court would have surprised the framers? At the Philadelphia Convention, more of the framers spoke in favor of judicial review than against, but the issue didn't come up very much. There wasn't that concerted a discussion of it. And they neglected to explicitly authorize the practice in the Constitution, which was kind of an oversight."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Do you think this new power for the court or expansion of power for the court would have surprised the framers? At the Philadelphia Convention, more of the framers spoke in favor of judicial review than against, but the issue didn't come up very much. There wasn't that concerted a discussion of it. And they neglected to explicitly authorize the practice in the Constitution, which was kind of an oversight. It's just not a subject they spent a great deal of time talking about. And even to the extent they believed in judicial review, they probably didn't think the practice would be anywhere near as extensive as it's become over the course of American history. The Supreme Court just wasn't that powerful an institution in 1803."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they neglected to explicitly authorize the practice in the Constitution, which was kind of an oversight. It's just not a subject they spent a great deal of time talking about. And even to the extent they believed in judicial review, they probably didn't think the practice would be anywhere near as extensive as it's become over the course of American history. The Supreme Court just wasn't that powerful an institution in 1803. And the fact that it was declaring the power of judicial review, but then was declining to exercise it in Marbury is very revealing of how lacking in power the court was. This was the first time that the Supreme Court exercised this power of judicial review. And it is something that everyone agrees, a power that everyone agrees that the Supreme Court has, and it's a big, awesome power."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Supreme Court just wasn't that powerful an institution in 1803. And the fact that it was declaring the power of judicial review, but then was declining to exercise it in Marbury is very revealing of how lacking in power the court was. This was the first time that the Supreme Court exercised this power of judicial review. And it is something that everyone agrees, a power that everyone agrees that the Supreme Court has, and it's a big, awesome power. And so it affects us because we're still arguing over how that power should be exercised. And that is an argument worth having. So we learned that far from simply being a case about one man's commission getting lost in the mail, Marbury v. Madison tested whether the president or Congress was above the law in the United States."}, {"video_title": "Marbury v. Madison   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it is something that everyone agrees, a power that everyone agrees that the Supreme Court has, and it's a big, awesome power. And so it affects us because we're still arguing over how that power should be exercised. And that is an argument worth having. So we learned that far from simply being a case about one man's commission getting lost in the mail, Marbury v. Madison tested whether the president or Congress was above the law in the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall's answer was emphatically no. And the decision in this case established an essential precedent for the Supreme Court, the power of judicial review. To learn more about Marbury v. Madison, check out the National Constitution Center's interactive constitution and Khan Academy's resources on US government and politics."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The electoral college. So when you show up to vote on election day, and election day will happen in November of an election year, and it could happen as early as November 2nd, and it could happen as late as November 8th, and it's going to be the Tuesday after the first Monday in the month. So it'll be November 2nd if the first Monday is November 1st, and it'll be November 8th if the first Monday is November 7th. And so you go on election day, and you will see a ballot that will have the presidential candidates, it'll have their parties there, it'll have the vice presidential candidates, and you'll vote for one of them. But in actuality, when you are voting for candidate A, and let's say candidate A is a Democrat, you're not actually voting for candidate A. You're actually voting for a slate of electors who promise to vote for that candidate. So you electors for that candidate."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so you go on election day, and you will see a ballot that will have the presidential candidates, it'll have their parties there, it'll have the vice presidential candidates, and you'll vote for one of them. But in actuality, when you are voting for candidate A, and let's say candidate A is a Democrat, you're not actually voting for candidate A. You're actually voting for a slate of electors who promise to vote for that candidate. So you electors for that candidate. And it isn't, in most states, proportional based on what proportion of people vote for one candidate or another. It's in most of the states, except for Maine and Nebraska, it is a winner-take-all system. So what do I mean by that?"}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you electors for that candidate. And it isn't, in most states, proportional based on what proportion of people vote for one candidate or another. It's in most of the states, except for Maine and Nebraska, it is a winner-take-all system. So what do I mean by that? So right here, you have the breakdown in the United States by state of how many electors each state gets. And the number of electors is essentially the number of congressmen that that state has. For example, California has two senators, every state has two senators."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what do I mean by that? So right here, you have the breakdown in the United States by state of how many electors each state gets. And the number of electors is essentially the number of congressmen that that state has. For example, California has two senators, every state has two senators. California has two senators and 53 congressmen. And those of you who aren't familiar with it, every state gets two senators, and the House of Representatives is dictated by population. California is a huge state, two senators, 53 representatives."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "For example, California has two senators, every state has two senators. California has two senators and 53 congressmen. And those of you who aren't familiar with it, every state gets two senators, and the House of Representatives is dictated by population. California is a huge state, two senators, 53 representatives. You have Texas, two senators, and it has 32 representatives. You go to Louisiana, you have two senators, and you have seven representatives. So the electors per state is based on the total number of congressmen, so the number of senators plus the number of representatives."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "California is a huge state, two senators, 53 representatives. You have Texas, two senators, and it has 32 representatives. You go to Louisiana, you have two senators, and you have seven representatives. So the electors per state is based on the total number of congressmen, so the number of senators plus the number of representatives. That's what gives us 55 in California, 9 in Louisiana, 34 in Texas. But what's interesting here is it's a winner-take-all system in every state except for Nebraska and Maine. In every other state, if I get 51% of the vote in Texas, I get all 34 electoral votes in the Electoral College."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the electors per state is based on the total number of congressmen, so the number of senators plus the number of representatives. That's what gives us 55 in California, 9 in Louisiana, 34 in Texas. But what's interesting here is it's a winner-take-all system in every state except for Nebraska and Maine. In every other state, if I get 51% of the vote in Texas, I get all 34 electoral votes in the Electoral College. If I get 51% or even if I get 50.1%, just a slight majority of the votes in California, I will get all of the votes for California in the Electoral College. In general, or in actuality, the president is whoever gets the majority of the electoral votes in the United States. Right now, that threshold is, or that magic number, you could think of it that way, is 270 electoral college votes."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In every other state, if I get 51% of the vote in Texas, I get all 34 electoral votes in the Electoral College. If I get 51% or even if I get 50.1%, just a slight majority of the votes in California, I will get all of the votes for California in the Electoral College. In general, or in actuality, the president is whoever gets the majority of the electoral votes in the United States. Right now, that threshold is, or that magic number, you could think of it that way, is 270 electoral college votes. If no candidate is able to hit this threshold of 270 electoral college votes, then it will go to the U.S. Congress. In the U.S. Congress, it's interesting because it isn't one congressman, one vote, or actually I should say the U.S. House of Representatives. It will go to the U.S. House of Representatives and it won't be one representative, one vote."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Right now, that threshold is, or that magic number, you could think of it that way, is 270 electoral college votes. If no candidate is able to hit this threshold of 270 electoral college votes, then it will go to the U.S. Congress. In the U.S. Congress, it's interesting because it isn't one congressman, one vote, or actually I should say the U.S. House of Representatives. It will go to the U.S. House of Representatives and it won't be one representative, one vote. What will happen is the representatives in each state will vote together and each state will get only one vote. In a tiebreaker, the big states really, really lose out because in a tiebreaker, Texas will get only one vote, California will get one vote, and Alaska will get one vote, and Rhode Island will get one vote. Rhode Island will have just as much say in a tiebreaker as California will over who will be president."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It will go to the U.S. House of Representatives and it won't be one representative, one vote. What will happen is the representatives in each state will vote together and each state will get only one vote. In a tiebreaker, the big states really, really lose out because in a tiebreaker, Texas will get only one vote, California will get one vote, and Alaska will get one vote, and Rhode Island will get one vote. Rhode Island will have just as much say in a tiebreaker as California will over who will be president. They'll just keep voting until someone gets a simple majority of the votes by state. There's one other twist here. The District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. right over here, in Congress gets no representatives."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Rhode Island will have just as much say in a tiebreaker as California will over who will be president. They'll just keep voting until someone gets a simple majority of the votes by state. There's one other twist here. The District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. right over here, in Congress gets no representatives. They have no senators and they have no representatives, but they do get three electoral votes when it comes to deciding who is going to be president. You might already have a sense here that maybe this winner-take-all system might lead to some distortions. The biggest distortion of all is you can imagine a candidate who wins the popular vote and loses the election or loses in the electoral college."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. right over here, in Congress gets no representatives. They have no senators and they have no representatives, but they do get three electoral votes when it comes to deciding who is going to be president. You might already have a sense here that maybe this winner-take-all system might lead to some distortions. The biggest distortion of all is you can imagine a candidate who wins the popular vote and loses the election or loses in the electoral college. You might think, well, gee, how can that happen? The way to think about it is imagine someone gets, with the states that they win, they get huge majorities. Let's say there's a conservative candidate, and he or she gets huge majorities in the states they win."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The biggest distortion of all is you can imagine a candidate who wins the popular vote and loses the election or loses in the electoral college. You might think, well, gee, how can that happen? The way to think about it is imagine someone gets, with the states that they win, they get huge majorities. Let's say there's a conservative candidate, and he or she gets huge majorities in the states they win. 80% in Texas, they get 80% in Mississippi, they get 80% in Oklahoma. They get huge majorities in the states that they win, and the states that they lose, they barely lose, they barely lose those really big states. Let's say in Florida, that candidate gets 49% of the vote."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's say there's a conservative candidate, and he or she gets huge majorities in the states they win. 80% in Texas, they get 80% in Mississippi, they get 80% in Oklahoma. They get huge majorities in the states that they win, and the states that they lose, they barely lose, they barely lose those really big states. Let's say in Florida, that candidate gets 49% of the vote. They had a lot of votes in Florida, but not enough to win it. The other person gets 51%, all 27 go to the other candidate. Let's say the same thing happens in California."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's say in Florida, that candidate gets 49% of the vote. They had a lot of votes in Florida, but not enough to win it. The other person gets 51%, all 27 go to the other candidate. Let's say the same thing happens in California. That candidate got 49% of the vote, the opponent gets 51% of the vote, all 55 go to California. You get no credit for that 49% in Florida. In this situation, this candidate might actually end up with a majority, barely losing the states they lose, and trouncing the other candidate in the states that they win, but despite that, actually getting fewer electoral college votes."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's say the same thing happens in California. That candidate got 49% of the vote, the opponent gets 51% of the vote, all 55 go to California. You get no credit for that 49% in Florida. In this situation, this candidate might actually end up with a majority, barely losing the states they lose, and trouncing the other candidate in the states that they win, but despite that, actually getting fewer electoral college votes. There's a few clarifications I want to make, especially ones that have confused me in the past. One of them is because you have the same number of electoral college votes as you have U.S. representatives plus senators, there's kind of this feeling that maybe each district sends its own elector to the state capitol to decide who president is. It doesn't quite work that way."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In this situation, this candidate might actually end up with a majority, barely losing the states they lose, and trouncing the other candidate in the states that they win, but despite that, actually getting fewer electoral college votes. There's a few clarifications I want to make, especially ones that have confused me in the past. One of them is because you have the same number of electoral college votes as you have U.S. representatives plus senators, there's kind of this feeling that maybe each district sends its own elector to the state capitol to decide who president is. It doesn't quite work that way. This right here is the panel of electors for Louisiana in 2008. You can see right over here, each of the parties have their own slate of electors. These are either decided by the party themselves, or they're decided by the candidates' teams."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It doesn't quite work that way. This right here is the panel of electors for Louisiana in 2008. You can see right over here, each of the parties have their own slate of electors. These are either decided by the party themselves, or they're decided by the candidates' teams. Even though you have someone here for each district, and then you have these at-large candidates, it's not like, let's take a situation, and this actually happened in Louisiana, where John McCain got a majority of the state. John McCain and Sarah Palin got a majority of the state. It's not the case that, let's say in the second district, which is New Orleans, let's say that the second district, a majority of the people, actually voted for Barack Obama."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These are either decided by the party themselves, or they're decided by the candidates' teams. Even though you have someone here for each district, and then you have these at-large candidates, it's not like, let's take a situation, and this actually happened in Louisiana, where John McCain got a majority of the state. John McCain and Sarah Palin got a majority of the state. It's not the case that, let's say in the second district, which is New Orleans, let's say that the second district, a majority of the people, actually voted for Barack Obama. It is not the case that Kenneth Garrett in 2008 would have been the chosen elector. Even though they divide things by district, and they have these at-large candidates, it is actually a statewide election. They don't look at who won each of the districts."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's not the case that, let's say in the second district, which is New Orleans, let's say that the second district, a majority of the people, actually voted for Barack Obama. It is not the case that Kenneth Garrett in 2008 would have been the chosen elector. Even though they divide things by district, and they have these at-large candidates, it is actually a statewide election. They don't look at who won each of the districts. They just say, look, John McCain and Sarah Palin won the entire state, so all of these electors are the ones that are going to go to the state capitol in December and decide who they want to pledge their vote for. Even if Obama won just the second congressional district, that's not how it's thought about in the electoral college. It's just a statewide election."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They don't look at who won each of the districts. They just say, look, John McCain and Sarah Palin won the entire state, so all of these electors are the ones that are going to go to the state capitol in December and decide who they want to pledge their vote for. Even if Obama won just the second congressional district, that's not how it's thought about in the electoral college. It's just a statewide election. McCain got the majority of the state. All of the electors will be chosen from McCain's slate, or from the Republican Party's slate. Then they're going to go to the state capitol, in the case of Louisiana, it would be Baton Rouge, and they will decide who they want to pledge their votes to."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It's just a statewide election. McCain got the majority of the state. All of the electors will be chosen from McCain's slate, or from the Republican Party's slate. Then they're going to go to the state capitol, in the case of Louisiana, it would be Baton Rouge, and they will decide who they want to pledge their votes to. All of the electors in all of the states go to their designated location, usually the state capitol, on the same day, and usually that is some day in December, and they pick the president. Although by that point, everyone knows who the president is, because the actual election was in early November, and people know which way the votes went and which way the actual electoral college votes went. I did mention that there are two states that don't do this winner-take-all, Nebraska and Maine."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then they're going to go to the state capitol, in the case of Louisiana, it would be Baton Rouge, and they will decide who they want to pledge their votes to. All of the electors in all of the states go to their designated location, usually the state capitol, on the same day, and usually that is some day in December, and they pick the president. Although by that point, everyone knows who the president is, because the actual election was in early November, and people know which way the votes went and which way the actual electoral college votes went. I did mention that there are two states that don't do this winner-take-all, Nebraska and Maine. In Nebraska and Maine, when you go vote, it really is by congressional district. Nebraska has three congressional districts, so in those three congressional districts, if one of them goes to the Democrat and two goes to the Republican, then they'll have one electoral vote for the Democrat and two for the Republican. Then they have two at-large votes that are decided the same way in kind of the winner-take-all basis."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I did mention that there are two states that don't do this winner-take-all, Nebraska and Maine. In Nebraska and Maine, when you go vote, it really is by congressional district. Nebraska has three congressional districts, so in those three congressional districts, if one of them goes to the Democrat and two goes to the Republican, then they'll have one electoral vote for the Democrat and two for the Republican. Then they have two at-large votes that are decided the same way in kind of the winner-take-all basis. If you get 51% of the vote on a statewide basis, you get the two at-large votes. Same thing for Maine, but Maine has two congressional districts, so two of the congressional districts could go either way, and then the at-large are based on a statewide vote. Now, you can imagine the other kind of unfair thing here, other than the popular vote versus the electoral college vote, is that you can imagine it makes some states better represented than others."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then they have two at-large votes that are decided the same way in kind of the winner-take-all basis. If you get 51% of the vote on a statewide basis, you get the two at-large votes. Same thing for Maine, but Maine has two congressional districts, so two of the congressional districts could go either way, and then the at-large are based on a statewide vote. Now, you can imagine the other kind of unfair thing here, other than the popular vote versus the electoral college vote, is that you can imagine it makes some states better represented than others. If you just divide population by the number of electors, you see the larger states, each elector is representing many, many more people. This is California right here. Each elector is representing over 600,000 people."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, you can imagine the other kind of unfair thing here, other than the popular vote versus the electoral college vote, is that you can imagine it makes some states better represented than others. If you just divide population by the number of electors, you see the larger states, each elector is representing many, many more people. This is California right here. Each elector is representing over 600,000 people. In the smaller states, this is Wyoming right here, each elector is representing under 200,000 people. In Wyoming, people are getting kind of three times the representation as they would in California on a per capita vote. What makes it even a little bit more skewed, because it's winner-take-all and the candidates aren't silly and they want to make sure that they spend their money and their visits and their time in the most leverageable way, it actually creates this weird scenario where candidates will often ignore huge parts of the population."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Each elector is representing over 600,000 people. In the smaller states, this is Wyoming right here, each elector is representing under 200,000 people. In Wyoming, people are getting kind of three times the representation as they would in California on a per capita vote. What makes it even a little bit more skewed, because it's winner-take-all and the candidates aren't silly and they want to make sure that they spend their money and their visits and their time in the most leverageable way, it actually creates this weird scenario where candidates will often ignore huge parts of the population. They ignore them because those huge parts of the population aren't likely to swing one way or the other. For example, California is very reliably Democratic and Texas is very reliably Republican. This right here, this is a fascinating graph, at least in my mind, it shows where George W. Bush and John Kerry spent the last five weeks of the 2004 election."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What makes it even a little bit more skewed, because it's winner-take-all and the candidates aren't silly and they want to make sure that they spend their money and their visits and their time in the most leverageable way, it actually creates this weird scenario where candidates will often ignore huge parts of the population. They ignore them because those huge parts of the population aren't likely to swing one way or the other. For example, California is very reliably Democratic and Texas is very reliably Republican. This right here, this is a fascinating graph, at least in my mind, it shows where George W. Bush and John Kerry spent the last five weeks of the 2004 election. This top graph shows where they actually spent their time. Each of these little hands here is a visit in those final five weeks and each of these dollar signs is a million dollars spent on marketing and advertising, in on ads and whatever else in those states. You can see California and Texas, the two biggest states, they didn't spend enough money to threshold to get a dollar sign written there."}, {"video_title": "Electoral college   American civics   US History   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This right here, this is a fascinating graph, at least in my mind, it shows where George W. Bush and John Kerry spent the last five weeks of the 2004 election. This top graph shows where they actually spent their time. Each of these little hands here is a visit in those final five weeks and each of these dollar signs is a million dollars spent on marketing and advertising, in on ads and whatever else in those states. You can see California and Texas, the two biggest states, they didn't spend enough money to threshold to get a dollar sign written there. They didn't even spend a million dollars on these huge states. They only had a few visits to California and Texas had no visits in the final five weeks. What happens is that candidates spend a disproportionate amount of attention and money in the states that are more likely to swing one way or another."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So a pension is essentially a defined benefit plan, defined benefit plan for retirement, defined benefit plan. And we can compare that to a defined contribution plan, defined contribution plan, defined contribution plan. So in a defined contribution plan, and this is more typical in a lot of private companies right now, every year that you work, so let's plot a little graph here. So this is years that you're working, and this is kind of compensation, this is compensation right over here. So in a defined contribution, every year that you work, you're obviously going to make your salary. Let's say you're making $60,000 a year. You're obviously going to make your salary every year that you work."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is years that you're working, and this is kind of compensation, this is compensation right over here. So in a defined contribution, every year that you work, you're obviously going to make your salary. Let's say you're making $60,000 a year. You're obviously going to make your salary every year that you work. And in a defined contribution plan, let's say this is when you retire, let's say for simplicity, we're assuming that you're going to retire at 65. So at 65, you're no longer going to be making your salary anymore. You're not working for that company anymore."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You're obviously going to make your salary every year that you work. And in a defined contribution plan, let's say this is when you retire, let's say for simplicity, we're assuming that you're going to retire at 65. So at 65, you're no longer going to be making your salary anymore. You're not working for that company anymore. But what the company will do is set up some plan, and a lot of these are 401ks, IRAs, where some combination of you and the company will set some money aside. And it's usually done in a tax-deferred way, so you don't have to pay taxes on it in that year. So every year, you're going to set some money aside, and I'll do this in green."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You're not working for that company anymore. But what the company will do is set up some plan, and a lot of these are 401ks, IRAs, where some combination of you and the company will set some money aside. And it's usually done in a tax-deferred way, so you don't have to pay taxes on it in that year. So every year, you're going to set some money aside, and I'll do this in green. So you're going to set maybe 10% of your income aside in every year. So these are every year, and actually the years are going to be much smaller than that if we're thinking this is about 30 years. So over the 30 years, you're setting some level of money aside, and you're investing it."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So every year, you're going to set some money aside, and I'll do this in green. So you're going to set maybe 10% of your income aside in every year. So these are every year, and actually the years are going to be much smaller than that if we're thinking this is about 30 years. So over the 30 years, you're setting some level of money aside, and you're investing it. You're putting it in the stock market, you're buying bonds in it with it, you're buying mutual funds, who knows what you might be doing with it. So you're setting this money aside so that when you retire, it will hopefully have grown. One, it's there, and you've invested it, and hopefully if you've invested it well and the stock market didn't do anything crazy, it will have grown, and it will be just a big lump sum of money."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So over the 30 years, you're setting some level of money aside, and you're investing it. You're putting it in the stock market, you're buying bonds in it with it, you're buying mutual funds, who knows what you might be doing with it. So you're setting this money aside so that when you retire, it will hopefully have grown. One, it's there, and you've invested it, and hopefully if you've invested it well and the stock market didn't do anything crazy, it will have grown, and it will be just a big lump sum of money. So let's say that you set aside $6,000 a year on average for 30 years. So you set aside $180,000, and let's say you invested it pretty well, and now that has grown to, let's say it's grown to $1 million because it was invested well. We could do the math to figure out what it could grow based on different growth rates."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One, it's there, and you've invested it, and hopefully if you've invested it well and the stock market didn't do anything crazy, it will have grown, and it will be just a big lump sum of money. So let's say that you set aside $6,000 a year on average for 30 years. So you set aside $180,000, and let's say you invested it pretty well, and now that has grown to, let's say it's grown to $1 million because it was invested well. We could do the math to figure out what it could grow based on different growth rates. So you have this huge lump sum of money now. So I'm not even drawing it to scale. So you have this huge lump sum of money, $1 million, assuming it was invested well."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "We could do the math to figure out what it could grow based on different growth rates. So you have this huge lump sum of money now. So I'm not even drawing it to scale. So you have this huge lump sum of money, $1 million, assuming it was invested well. If it was invested badly, maybe that $180,000 is still $180,000. In theory, maybe if it was invested really badly, it could be even less than $180,000. But whatever that number is, whether it's $1 million or whether it's $200,000 or whether it's something smaller, that's essentially the money that you have to live on for your retirement, regardless of how long you live, regardless of what the cost of living might be, regardless of what your needs might be, regardless of how expensive your health care might be."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you have this huge lump sum of money, $1 million, assuming it was invested well. If it was invested badly, maybe that $180,000 is still $180,000. In theory, maybe if it was invested really badly, it could be even less than $180,000. But whatever that number is, whether it's $1 million or whether it's $200,000 or whether it's something smaller, that's essentially the money that you have to live on for your retirement, regardless of how long you live, regardless of what the cost of living might be, regardless of what your needs might be, regardless of how expensive your health care might be. This is going to be the money that you have to live on. So it might be more than enough money if you invested well, and you put enough money aside. It might be a lot less than you need, in which case you're going to be in trouble."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But whatever that number is, whether it's $1 million or whether it's $200,000 or whether it's something smaller, that's essentially the money that you have to live on for your retirement, regardless of how long you live, regardless of what the cost of living might be, regardless of what your needs might be, regardless of how expensive your health care might be. This is going to be the money that you have to live on. So it might be more than enough money if you invested well, and you put enough money aside. It might be a lot less than you need, in which case you're going to be in trouble. And a defined benefit plan, and this is typical. A lot of state employees have defined benefit plan. In a lot of more traditional industries, oftentimes that are unionized, they also have a defined benefit plan or a pension."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It might be a lot less than you need, in which case you're going to be in trouble. And a defined benefit plan, and this is typical. A lot of state employees have defined benefit plan. In a lot of more traditional industries, oftentimes that are unionized, they also have a defined benefit plan or a pension. The situation is a little different. Just like any organization, you will get your salary every year that you work. And let's just say that this is over the course of 30 years."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In a lot of more traditional industries, oftentimes that are unionized, they also have a defined benefit plan or a pension. The situation is a little different. Just like any organization, you will get your salary every year that you work. And let's just say that this is over the course of 30 years. So once again, you retire at age 65. But in a defined benefit plan, the employer is going to set aside some money, and sometimes the employee sets some money aside as well. So some money is set aside."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And let's just say that this is over the course of 30 years. So once again, you retire at age 65. But in a defined benefit plan, the employer is going to set aside some money, and sometimes the employee sets some money aside as well. So some money is set aside. So once again, the money is set aside. The money is set aside, and it is invested, hopefully in a safe way. And it's invested."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So some money is set aside. So once again, the money is set aside. The money is set aside, and it is invested, hopefully in a safe way. And it's invested. But regardless of what that money and regardless of what that turns into through an investment, you are guaranteed a certain degree of benefits. So in this case, you are guaranteed. Let's say that if you've done more than 20 years of service here, you get 60% of your last five years' salary."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's invested. But regardless of what that money and regardless of what that turns into through an investment, you are guaranteed a certain degree of benefits. So in this case, you are guaranteed. Let's say that if you've done more than 20 years of service here, you get 60% of your last five years' salary. There are different ways of defining that defined benefit. It could be like that. It could be you get $100 per month for every year that you work at the organization."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's say that if you've done more than 20 years of service here, you get 60% of your last five years' salary. There are different ways of defining that defined benefit. It could be like that. It could be you get $100 per month for every year that you work at the organization. You get $100 per month extra when you retire. But they tend to be for life, for the rest of your life, from 65 until you pass away. You are guaranteed this defined benefit."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It could be you get $100 per month for every year that you work at the organization. You get $100 per month extra when you retire. But they tend to be for life, for the rest of your life, from 65 until you pass away. You are guaranteed this defined benefit. And so if the money set aside and invested well and happened to be a lot more money than necessary, that's great, but all the employee would get is this kind of guarantee. But if the money is less than necessary, then the company is still promising that they are going to pay this benefit, and they'll probably have to put more, or the state or whoever is doing this, would have to put more money in in order to pay this compensation. Now, what are the things that you would have to estimate if you were the person setting aside this money to figure out what you have to set aside in order to give this defined benefit?"}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You are guaranteed this defined benefit. And so if the money set aside and invested well and happened to be a lot more money than necessary, that's great, but all the employee would get is this kind of guarantee. But if the money is less than necessary, then the company is still promising that they are going to pay this benefit, and they'll probably have to put more, or the state or whoever is doing this, would have to put more money in in order to pay this compensation. Now, what are the things that you would have to estimate if you were the person setting aside this money to figure out what you have to set aside in order to give this defined benefit? Well, you're going to have to hire a bunch of statisticians, essentially actuaries, to say, well, how long are people going to live? So you're going to have to care about lifespan. And obviously you can't predict any one person's lifespan, but if you're doing this for hundreds of thousands of employees, maybe you can figure out what a likely lifespan is."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, what are the things that you would have to estimate if you were the person setting aside this money to figure out what you have to set aside in order to give this defined benefit? Well, you're going to have to hire a bunch of statisticians, essentially actuaries, to say, well, how long are people going to live? So you're going to have to care about lifespan. And obviously you can't predict any one person's lifespan, but if you're doing this for hundreds of thousands of employees, maybe you can figure out what a likely lifespan is. You're going to have to figure out cost of living. So inflation is a measure of cost of living, but it might be more specific to the region, or it might be negotiated in some ways with the union. So you're going to have cost of living."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And obviously you can't predict any one person's lifespan, but if you're doing this for hundreds of thousands of employees, maybe you can figure out what a likely lifespan is. You're going to have to figure out cost of living. So inflation is a measure of cost of living, but it might be more specific to the region, or it might be negotiated in some ways with the union. So you're going to have cost of living. So this is a cost of living adjustment. When people talk about colas, they're talking about, well, if they're not talking about soda, they're talking about cost of living adjustments. You're going to have to think about this money that you set aside."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So you're going to have cost of living. So this is a cost of living adjustment. When people talk about colas, they're talking about, well, if they're not talking about soda, they're talking about cost of living adjustments. You're going to have to think about this money that you set aside. What is the assumed growth rate? What is the assumed growth rate? If you make very optimistic estimates of how well your investments will do, you can set aside less money."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You're going to have to think about this money that you set aside. What is the assumed growth rate? What is the assumed growth rate? If you make very optimistic estimates of how well your investments will do, you can set aside less money. If you think that your money isn't going to do well investment-wise, you're going to have to set aside even more money. And this is one of the cruxes of the issue, because you can imagine, let's say that we're talking at a state level, and people are, you know, right now, let's say that your current actuaries, your statisticians are saying, look, for this person, in order to guarantee them 60% of their salary when they retire, so that's $36,000, in order to guarantee that, we have to put aside, and I'm just estimating these numbers right over here. Let's say we have to set aside $6,000 a year, especially when we're 30 years in advance."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you make very optimistic estimates of how well your investments will do, you can set aside less money. If you think that your money isn't going to do well investment-wise, you're going to have to set aside even more money. And this is one of the cruxes of the issue, because you can imagine, let's say that we're talking at a state level, and people are, you know, right now, let's say that your current actuaries, your statisticians are saying, look, for this person, in order to guarantee them 60% of their salary when they retire, so that's $36,000, in order to guarantee that, we have to put aside, and I'm just estimating these numbers right over here. Let's say we have to set aside $6,000 a year, especially when we're 30 years in advance. Actually, let me do a little bit more than that. Let's say $10,000 per year. And let's say that the person in charge, the state official, goes to those actuaries and says, well, what are you assuming about how much we're going to get on our investments here?"}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's say we have to set aside $6,000 a year, especially when we're 30 years in advance. Actually, let me do a little bit more than that. Let's say $10,000 per year. And let's say that the person in charge, the state official, goes to those actuaries and says, well, what are you assuming about how much we're going to get on our investments here? And the actuaries are saying, well, we're going to assume a fairly conservative, we're going to assume that we're going to get 3%, 3% return on our money. But then the state official says, oh, well, you know, ideally they would want some of this $10,000 per year to spend on other things, and so they would like this to be lower. And so they say, well, that seems very conservative."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And let's say that the person in charge, the state official, goes to those actuaries and says, well, what are you assuming about how much we're going to get on our investments here? And the actuaries are saying, well, we're going to assume a fairly conservative, we're going to assume that we're going to get 3%, 3% return on our money. But then the state official says, oh, well, you know, ideally they would want some of this $10,000 per year to spend on other things, and so they would like this to be lower. And so they say, well, that seems very conservative. In the last 10 years in the stock market, we've gotten 10% return. Or I know an endowment that's recently gotten 6% return. So why don't we assume a higher return here?"}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so they say, well, that seems very conservative. In the last 10 years in the stock market, we've gotten 10% return. Or I know an endowment that's recently gotten 6% return. So why don't we assume a higher return here? So if we assume a higher return, why don't we assume a 5% return? And all of a sudden, if we're assuming a 5% return, then we'll have to set aside less money that year, $8,000 a year. And sometimes it's not even this."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So why don't we assume a higher return here? So if we assume a higher return, why don't we assume a 5% return? And all of a sudden, if we're assuming a 5% return, then we'll have to set aside less money that year, $8,000 a year. And sometimes it's not even this. It's not even this playing with the assumptions, making more optimistic assumptions that allow you to spend less money in that current year. Sometimes you might know that you have to spend $10,000 a year to kind of be able to properly fund these pensions in the future. You do have some types of unfunded pensions, but in theory a responsible party should try to fund these as much as possible."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And sometimes it's not even this. It's not even this playing with the assumptions, making more optimistic assumptions that allow you to spend less money in that current year. Sometimes you might know that you have to spend $10,000 a year to kind of be able to properly fund these pensions in the future. You do have some types of unfunded pensions, but in theory a responsible party should try to fund these as much as possible. You might know that you have to fund $10,000 a year in order to credibly give this defined benefit for this employee 30 years in the future. But 30 years in the future is a long time, and you have present difficulties, you have present shortfalls in your budget. And say, OK, I recognize that I have to put $10,000 a year, but you still don't do that."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You do have some types of unfunded pensions, but in theory a responsible party should try to fund these as much as possible. You might know that you have to fund $10,000 a year in order to credibly give this defined benefit for this employee 30 years in the future. But 30 years in the future is a long time, and you have present difficulties, you have present shortfalls in your budget. And say, OK, I recognize that I have to put $10,000 a year, but you still don't do that. So you underfund the pension. So even if you recognize this, or if you recognize this, you still only put $5,000 a year. Really just kind of kicking the can down the road, hoping that the next guy or gal who's in your position is going to figure out something."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And say, OK, I recognize that I have to put $10,000 a year, but you still don't do that. So you underfund the pension. So even if you recognize this, or if you recognize this, you still only put $5,000 a year. Really just kind of kicking the can down the road, hoping that the next guy or gal who's in your position is going to figure out something. Or maybe you'll just be very optimistic that the growth will turn out or that the state will eventually work things out. And what we'll see over the next video, this notion of underfunding pensions is a big, big, big, big problem. Because we've had decades of underfunded pensions, and it's been especially pronounced in particular states."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Really just kind of kicking the can down the road, hoping that the next guy or gal who's in your position is going to figure out something. Or maybe you'll just be very optimistic that the growth will turn out or that the state will eventually work things out. And what we'll see over the next video, this notion of underfunding pensions is a big, big, big, big problem. Because we've had decades of underfunded pensions, and it's been especially pronounced in particular states. And because of that, those states, in order to fund the pension obligations that are hitting now, those expenses for employees that are retired are starting to grow beyond their budgets for the employees that are working right now. And it's a tough issue. You can't cut these things very easily."}, {"video_title": "Pension obligations   American civics   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Because we've had decades of underfunded pensions, and it's been especially pronounced in particular states. And because of that, those states, in order to fund the pension obligations that are hitting now, those expenses for employees that are retired are starting to grow beyond their budgets for the employees that are working right now. And it's a tough issue. You can't cut these things very easily. People expected these. These are retirees. These are people who have been working their whole life based on this assumption."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Article One is jam-packed with information about how our government is supposed to work, but principally what it does is create the legislative branch of government, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate, which together comprise the Congress of the United States. Article One also tells us how people can get elected to those bodies and what powers Congress has. To learn more about Article One, I talked to two constitutional experts. Ilya Soman is a professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, whose research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and the study of popular political participation. Professor Heather Gerken is the dean of Yale Law School. She's a leading expert on constitutional law and election law, and her research focuses on federalism, diversity, and dissent. Article One gives an enormous amount of power to the legislative branch, otherwise known as Congress, and it was designed specifically to overcome some of the problems that they'd seen under the Articles of Confederation."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Ilya Soman is a professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, whose research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and the study of popular political participation. Professor Heather Gerken is the dean of Yale Law School. She's a leading expert on constitutional law and election law, and her research focuses on federalism, diversity, and dissent. Article One gives an enormous amount of power to the legislative branch, otherwise known as Congress, and it was designed specifically to overcome some of the problems that they'd seen under the Articles of Confederation. The legislative power under the Articles of Confederation was pretty weak, in part because the Congress under the Confederate Articles didn't have the authority to directly tax the states. They also lacked a lot of other powers that were eventually given to Congress under the Constitution. These were the things that really mattered."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Article One gives an enormous amount of power to the legislative branch, otherwise known as Congress, and it was designed specifically to overcome some of the problems that they'd seen under the Articles of Confederation. The legislative power under the Articles of Confederation was pretty weak, in part because the Congress under the Confederate Articles didn't have the authority to directly tax the states. They also lacked a lot of other powers that were eventually given to Congress under the Constitution. These were the things that really mattered. If you're building a young nation, you need to be able to do certain things in order to protect it, especially at that time, when there were many, many other countries that were circling around, wanting to grab land and power, and so the United States needed to defend itself in those early days. Okay, so we all know today that our legislative branch is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives, but it didn't have to be that way. So why was it that the framers settled on this two-house structure for the legislative branch?"}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "These were the things that really mattered. If you're building a young nation, you need to be able to do certain things in order to protect it, especially at that time, when there were many, many other countries that were circling around, wanting to grab land and power, and so the United States needed to defend itself in those early days. Okay, so we all know today that our legislative branch is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives, but it didn't have to be that way. So why was it that the framers settled on this two-house structure for the legislative branch? I think for several reasons. One is that it was a compromise between the small states and the large states. The large states, the ones that have a lot of population, wanted representation in Congress in accordance with population, obviously, then the large states would get more representatives."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So why was it that the framers settled on this two-house structure for the legislative branch? I think for several reasons. One is that it was a compromise between the small states and the large states. The large states, the ones that have a lot of population, wanted representation in Congress in accordance with population, obviously, then the large states would get more representatives. The small states, on the other hand, were concerned that they would be dominated by the large states if that happened. So in the end, the compromise is you have one House to House of Representatives, which is largely apportioned based on population, and one House, the Senate, which is apportioned based on each state having two votes, no matter how small or how large it is. A second reason why you end up with this structure is the influence of the British example."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The large states, the ones that have a lot of population, wanted representation in Congress in accordance with population, obviously, then the large states would get more representatives. The small states, on the other hand, were concerned that they would be dominated by the large states if that happened. So in the end, the compromise is you have one House to House of Representatives, which is largely apportioned based on population, and one House, the Senate, which is apportioned based on each state having two votes, no matter how small or how large it is. A second reason why you end up with this structure is the influence of the British example. The British had both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, of course, being more subject to popular pressure, while the House of Lords was this elite aristocracy. And the founders also wanted a combination of popular and elite power, and it was thought that the Senate would fill that elite role, in part because initially the senators were chosen by state legislatures rather than by the voters directly. So the House of Representatives, which is based on districts, is supposed to represent you based on where you live, and the Senate, which is based on states, is supposed to allow, at that time, the state legislature to nominate two luminaries from the state to represent the state."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "A second reason why you end up with this structure is the influence of the British example. The British had both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, of course, being more subject to popular pressure, while the House of Lords was this elite aristocracy. And the founders also wanted a combination of popular and elite power, and it was thought that the Senate would fill that elite role, in part because initially the senators were chosen by state legislatures rather than by the voters directly. So the House of Representatives, which is based on districts, is supposed to represent you based on where you live, and the Senate, which is based on states, is supposed to allow, at that time, the state legislature to nominate two luminaries from the state to represent the state. So yeah, for a long time, the senators were actually appointed. Now they're elected. Senators were appointed until the passage of the 17th Amendment, which amended Article I, and that gave state legislatures a fair amount of influence over who went to the national government."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So the House of Representatives, which is based on districts, is supposed to represent you based on where you live, and the Senate, which is based on states, is supposed to allow, at that time, the state legislature to nominate two luminaries from the state to represent the state. So yeah, for a long time, the senators were actually appointed. Now they're elected. Senators were appointed until the passage of the 17th Amendment, which amended Article I, and that gave state legislatures a fair amount of influence over who went to the national government. But it is also true that many states, by that time, already effectively had popular election of senators. Really interesting. Okay, so you described the Senate as being kind of the American version of the House of Lords, a little bit more elite, a little less subject to popular opinion."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Senators were appointed until the passage of the 17th Amendment, which amended Article I, and that gave state legislatures a fair amount of influence over who went to the national government. But it is also true that many states, by that time, already effectively had popular election of senators. Really interesting. Okay, so you described the Senate as being kind of the American version of the House of Lords, a little bit more elite, a little less subject to popular opinion. How does that carry over into the Senate that we have today? How are its powers different from the House of Representatives? It does have certainly different powers from the House in some respects."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay, so you described the Senate as being kind of the American version of the House of Lords, a little bit more elite, a little less subject to popular opinion. How does that carry over into the Senate that we have today? How are its powers different from the House of Representatives? It does have certainly different powers from the House in some respects. For example, it has the power to ratify treaties and to confirm appointments to the court and to the president's cabinet. So earlier this year, when Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the Supreme Court, he had to be confirmed by the Senate. Obviously, today, the senators are elected just like members of the House are, and I think they're every bit as partisan and almost as sensitive to public opinion as members of the House of Representatives."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "It does have certainly different powers from the House in some respects. For example, it has the power to ratify treaties and to confirm appointments to the court and to the president's cabinet. So earlier this year, when Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the Supreme Court, he had to be confirmed by the Senate. Obviously, today, the senators are elected just like members of the House are, and I think they're every bit as partisan and almost as sensitive to public opinion as members of the House of Representatives. So the difference between the Senate and the House in that regard, maybe it hasn't completely disappeared, but it's certainly greatly diminished. Okay, so there are certain powers that are reserved to the Senate. Are there particular powers that are reserved to the House of Representatives?"}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Obviously, today, the senators are elected just like members of the House are, and I think they're every bit as partisan and almost as sensitive to public opinion as members of the House of Representatives. So the difference between the Senate and the House in that regard, maybe it hasn't completely disappeared, but it's certainly greatly diminished. Okay, so there are certain powers that are reserved to the Senate. Are there particular powers that are reserved to the House of Representatives? The House is important. Don't underestimate the importance of the House. I'll just say the House of Representatives, for example, is allowed to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Are there particular powers that are reserved to the House of Representatives? The House is important. Don't underestimate the importance of the House. I'll just say the House of Representatives, for example, is allowed to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. If the House votes in favor of impeachment, then the Senate holds a trial to determine whether the official in question gets convicted or not. As a general matter, though, they're roughly co-equal. For the big, important things like passing legislation, you need both of them to work together."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I'll just say the House of Representatives, for example, is allowed to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. If the House votes in favor of impeachment, then the Senate holds a trial to determine whether the official in question gets convicted or not. As a general matter, though, they're roughly co-equal. For the big, important things like passing legislation, you need both of them to work together. So together, these two houses make up Congress. So how is Congress different from the executive branch or the judicial branch? What are its powers?"}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "For the big, important things like passing legislation, you need both of them to work together. So together, these two houses make up Congress. So how is Congress different from the executive branch or the judicial branch? What are its powers? The way that the framers understood it was that each one would have their own job. So the judiciary, obviously, was there to judge disputes between people, to run the court system, et cetera. The executive was there to carry out the laws."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "What are its powers? The way that the framers understood it was that each one would have their own job. So the judiciary, obviously, was there to judge disputes between people, to run the court system, et cetera. The executive was there to carry out the laws. And so the executive's job is to administer the law once it has been made. And of course, the legislature is there to legislate. So its main job was to make the law."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The executive was there to carry out the laws. And so the executive's job is to administer the law once it has been made. And of course, the legislature is there to legislate. So its main job was to make the law. And at the time, I will just tell you, everyone thought that the big gorilla in the room was Congress, that it would be, by far, the most powerful organization. The framers simply did not anticipate how powerful both the judiciary and the president would become over time. So what happens if, for example, the Congress and the president don't get along?"}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So its main job was to make the law. And at the time, I will just tell you, everyone thought that the big gorilla in the room was Congress, that it would be, by far, the most powerful organization. The framers simply did not anticipate how powerful both the judiciary and the president would become over time. So what happens if, for example, the Congress and the president don't get along? Well, it happens quite a lot. The president could refuse to accept laws passed by Congress. He can veto them."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So what happens if, for example, the Congress and the president don't get along? Well, it happens quite a lot. The president could refuse to accept laws passed by Congress. He can veto them. In that event, Congress could only override it if 2 thirds of both the House and the Senate voted to do so. Congress, on the other hand, can pressure the president in various ways. They can hold hearings investigating his conduct of various issues."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "He can veto them. In that event, Congress could only override it if 2 thirds of both the House and the Senate voted to do so. Congress, on the other hand, can pressure the president in various ways. They can hold hearings investigating his conduct of various issues. They can defund agencies of the executive branch whose job performance they don't like. They can refuse to confirm the president's appointees to various offices. And in extreme cases that have happened a couple of times in our history, Congress can even impeach the president."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They can hold hearings investigating his conduct of various issues. They can defund agencies of the executive branch whose job performance they don't like. They can refuse to confirm the president's appointees to various offices. And in extreme cases that have happened a couple of times in our history, Congress can even impeach the president. And if he gets convicted in the Senate, then he would be removed from office. This is what led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. The House of Representatives impeached him."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And in extreme cases that have happened a couple of times in our history, Congress can even impeach the president. And if he gets convicted in the Senate, then he would be removed from office. This is what led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. The House of Representatives impeached him. And Nixon resigned before he could be tried in the Senate. President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton were also both impeached. And in both cases, the Senate ultimately acquitted them."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The House of Representatives impeached him. And Nixon resigned before he could be tried in the Senate. President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton were also both impeached. And in both cases, the Senate ultimately acquitted them. But it was still a very painful time for both of those presidents. So speaking of antagonistic relationships, I think one thing that's really come to dominate Congress is partisanship. To what extent did the Constitution anticipate this rise of parties and partisanship?"}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And in both cases, the Senate ultimately acquitted them. But it was still a very painful time for both of those presidents. So speaking of antagonistic relationships, I think one thing that's really come to dominate Congress is partisanship. To what extent did the Constitution anticipate this rise of parties and partisanship? They actually knew about parties to some degree from their British experience. But they were very suspicious of them. And they hoped and perhaps expected that they wouldn't emerge in America to anything like the same extent that they had in Britain."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "To what extent did the Constitution anticipate this rise of parties and partisanship? They actually knew about parties to some degree from their British experience. But they were very suspicious of them. And they hoped and perhaps expected that they wouldn't emerge in America to anything like the same extent that they had in Britain. But in actual fact, within a few years after the adoption of the Constitution, we already had the first party system, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. And partisan alignments have played a big role in Congress ever since then. So even back then, there were rival interpretations of how the Constitution should be carried out and what kind of power the national government should wield."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And they hoped and perhaps expected that they wouldn't emerge in America to anything like the same extent that they had in Britain. But in actual fact, within a few years after the adoption of the Constitution, we already had the first party system, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. And partisan alignments have played a big role in Congress ever since then. So even back then, there were rival interpretations of how the Constitution should be carried out and what kind of power the national government should wield. But they somehow thought, naively, I think, that the parties would disappear and that people would have allegiances to their state or to their region, but they wouldn't have allegiance to a party. That broke down completely almost immediately after the Constitution was written. That leads to a real problem these days, because most modern constitutions recognize that there will be two parties, that they will be in competition with one another, and that part of the job of the Constitution is to regulate that competition."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So even back then, there were rival interpretations of how the Constitution should be carried out and what kind of power the national government should wield. But they somehow thought, naively, I think, that the parties would disappear and that people would have allegiances to their state or to their region, but they wouldn't have allegiance to a party. That broke down completely almost immediately after the Constitution was written. That leads to a real problem these days, because most modern constitutions recognize that there will be two parties, that they will be in competition with one another, and that part of the job of the Constitution is to regulate that competition. Would the founders have done anything differently? If they had known about parties and expected that they would play such a big role, it's hard to know for sure. But maybe they would have been less confident than some of them were that Congress would always stand up for its prerogatives against the president."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That leads to a real problem these days, because most modern constitutions recognize that there will be two parties, that they will be in competition with one another, and that part of the job of the Constitution is to regulate that competition. Would the founders have done anything differently? If they had known about parties and expected that they would play such a big role, it's hard to know for sure. But maybe they would have been less confident than some of them were that Congress would always stand up for its prerogatives against the president. When the president and Congress are of the same party, I think often Congress is inclined to overlook various presidential abuses. If the reverse is true, things might be very difficult to do. Exactly."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But maybe they would have been less confident than some of them were that Congress would always stand up for its prerogatives against the president. When the president and Congress are of the same party, I think often Congress is inclined to overlook various presidential abuses. If the reverse is true, things might be very difficult to do. Exactly. I mean, the whole point about them needing to act, needing one another to act, is really a problem if one side isn't trying to stick to the other side. One other thing we see here in Article 1 is talking about what the federal government does versus what the states do. So this is the idea of federalism, then."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Exactly. I mean, the whole point about them needing to act, needing one another to act, is really a problem if one side isn't trying to stick to the other side. One other thing we see here in Article 1 is talking about what the federal government does versus what the states do. So this is the idea of federalism, then. Could you tell us a little bit more just about what federalism is and how it's supposed to work? So the way that we understand federalism back then was that there was a division of labor. The states would regulate things that were inside their territories and accorded to them in terms of responsibility."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is the idea of federalism, then. Could you tell us a little bit more just about what federalism is and how it's supposed to work? So the way that we understand federalism back then was that there was a division of labor. The states would regulate things that were inside their territories and accorded to them in terms of responsibility. And the federal government would regulate everything that was accorded to it under the Constitution. The problem is, as Congress's power became more and more expansive, it ended up regulating in the same areas that the states regulate. So if the federal government and the states have a law on the same topic, who wins?"}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The states would regulate things that were inside their territories and accorded to them in terms of responsibility. And the federal government would regulate everything that was accorded to it under the Constitution. The problem is, as Congress's power became more and more expansive, it ended up regulating in the same areas that the states regulate. So if the federal government and the states have a law on the same topic, who wins? As long as it's passed properly by the federal government, the federal government wins. So if there is a federal law and the state law is inconsistent with it, the state law is displaced. Is there anything that might surprise the framers about how our Congress operates today?"}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if the federal government and the states have a law on the same topic, who wins? As long as it's passed properly by the federal government, the federal government wins. So if there is a federal law and the state law is inconsistent with it, the state law is displaced. Is there anything that might surprise the framers about how our Congress operates today? When the framers created Article 1 and drafted it, they certainly expected that Congress would have more power under the Constitution than it did under the Articles of Confederation. But I don't think very many of them would have believed that Congress would ever be able to do things like forbid the growth of medical marijuana in your backyard, or regulate what kind of toilet you're allowed to have in your house, or for that matter, do something like the war on drugs, which forbids the possession of drugs throughout the country and the like. Originally, the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is the authority under which most of these things are done, it was at the time conceived of as a power for Congress to break down trade barriers between states and perhaps regulate the actual shipment or trade in goods and services across state lines."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Is there anything that might surprise the framers about how our Congress operates today? When the framers created Article 1 and drafted it, they certainly expected that Congress would have more power under the Constitution than it did under the Articles of Confederation. But I don't think very many of them would have believed that Congress would ever be able to do things like forbid the growth of medical marijuana in your backyard, or regulate what kind of toilet you're allowed to have in your house, or for that matter, do something like the war on drugs, which forbids the possession of drugs throughout the country and the like. Originally, the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is the authority under which most of these things are done, it was at the time conceived of as a power for Congress to break down trade barriers between states and perhaps regulate the actual shipment or trade in goods and services across state lines. It was not until the 20th century, particularly after the New Deal, that Congress was able to start using this as a power to regulate nearly every aspect of human life that might, in some respect, affect the national economy. So that, I think, is a huge change. I think what would really surprise the framers is how willing Congress has been to give up its own power."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Originally, the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is the authority under which most of these things are done, it was at the time conceived of as a power for Congress to break down trade barriers between states and perhaps regulate the actual shipment or trade in goods and services across state lines. It was not until the 20th century, particularly after the New Deal, that Congress was able to start using this as a power to regulate nearly every aspect of human life that might, in some respect, affect the national economy. So that, I think, is a huge change. I think what would really surprise the framers is how willing Congress has been to give up its own power. So Congress has given the president a lot of power because it's created administrative agencies with vaguely defined mandates that therefore allow the president to use this entire administrative agency apparatus to pursue his goals. So we've learned that Article I of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch of US government, which is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. These two bodies were created to balance popular power with elite power, since members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, whereas senators were appointed by state legislatures."}, {"video_title": "Article I of the Constitution   US Government and Politics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "I think what would really surprise the framers is how willing Congress has been to give up its own power. So Congress has given the president a lot of power because it's created administrative agencies with vaguely defined mandates that therefore allow the president to use this entire administrative agency apparatus to pursue his goals. So we've learned that Article I of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch of US government, which is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. These two bodies were created to balance popular power with elite power, since members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, whereas senators were appointed by state legislatures. Although one major change is that senators are now elected as well, what might really surprise the framers about Congress today is how its power has evolved over time. On one hand, as Heather Gerken mentioned, the powers of the president and the Supreme Court have grown compared to the powers of Congress. But on the other hand, as Ilya Solman points out, the framers might be surprised at just how much of our lives Congress can regulate today."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And now when we talk about revenue for the federal government that primarily comes in the form of taxes. And what we see in this visual, it shows the four basic types of taxes that the federal government collects. You have individual income taxes, which you are probably familiar with. If you ever get a pay stub and if you thought you were making, let's say $1,000 in a pay period, you might see your paycheck is closer to $600 because there might be individual income taxes taken out at both the federal and the state level. Then you have payroll taxes. And unless you are an employer, you might not be familiar with payroll taxes. Above and beyond your individual income taxes, your employer also pays taxes called payroll taxes."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "If you ever get a pay stub and if you thought you were making, let's say $1,000 in a pay period, you might see your paycheck is closer to $600 because there might be individual income taxes taken out at both the federal and the state level. Then you have payroll taxes. And unless you are an employer, you might not be familiar with payroll taxes. Above and beyond your individual income taxes, your employer also pays taxes called payroll taxes. Now these are primarily to pay for things like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance. And some of you are saying, well, don't they take that out of my individual income taxes as well? And the answer is yes, but above and beyond what is individually paid by you, they also take payroll taxes to fund that."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Above and beyond your individual income taxes, your employer also pays taxes called payroll taxes. Now these are primarily to pay for things like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance. And some of you are saying, well, don't they take that out of my individual income taxes as well? And the answer is yes, but above and beyond what is individually paid by you, they also take payroll taxes to fund that. Corporate taxes are taxes on corporations' profits. And excise taxes, which you don't hear folks talk a lot about these days, but these are taxes on things like gasoline or alcohol and tobacco or airline tickets that are usually baked into those products. And those taxes can oftentimes go to the federal government."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the answer is yes, but above and beyond what is individually paid by you, they also take payroll taxes to fund that. Corporate taxes are taxes on corporations' profits. And excise taxes, which you don't hear folks talk a lot about these days, but these are taxes on things like gasoline or alcohol and tobacco or airline tickets that are usually baked into those products. And those taxes can oftentimes go to the federal government. Now pause this video and see if you see any interesting trends. This visual here shows the breakdown between these four taxes for the federal government's revenue and how it's changed from 1950 all the way to 2015. Well, it looks like individual income taxes as a percent of total government revenue has stayed roughly stable."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And those taxes can oftentimes go to the federal government. Now pause this video and see if you see any interesting trends. This visual here shows the breakdown between these four taxes for the federal government's revenue and how it's changed from 1950 all the way to 2015. Well, it looks like individual income taxes as a percent of total government revenue has stayed roughly stable. But what you see is that payroll taxes have grown dramatically, while corporate taxes have shrunk. Payroll taxes have gone from 11% of the federal government's revenue in 1950 to nearly 1 3rd of the federal government's revenue in 2015. Corporate taxes have gone down from 26.5% all the way down to 10.6%."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, it looks like individual income taxes as a percent of total government revenue has stayed roughly stable. But what you see is that payroll taxes have grown dramatically, while corporate taxes have shrunk. Payroll taxes have gone from 11% of the federal government's revenue in 1950 to nearly 1 3rd of the federal government's revenue in 2015. Corporate taxes have gone down from 26.5% all the way down to 10.6%. And excise taxes are a very small percentage. They used to be a significant part, but they are now a very small part of total government revenue. Now one thing to keep in mind, this visual over here just shows the breakdown."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Corporate taxes have gone down from 26.5% all the way down to 10.6%. And excise taxes are a very small percentage. They used to be a significant part, but they are now a very small part of total government revenue. Now one thing to keep in mind, this visual over here just shows the breakdown. It's not showing the absolute level. If you were seeing the absolute level of government revenue, you would see that grow as the nation's GDP grew as well. But in big categories, where does that revenue get spent?"}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now one thing to keep in mind, this visual over here just shows the breakdown. It's not showing the absolute level. If you were seeing the absolute level of government revenue, you would see that grow as the nation's GDP grew as well. But in big categories, where does that revenue get spent? Well, this is a similar diagram that shows the breakdown of outlays by the federal government from 1962 all the way, and these are going into projected outlays, to 2020. At the time of this video, we are right over here in 2017, and this chart was made in 2016, so it was made at around this time. But you see a couple of big categories."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But in big categories, where does that revenue get spent? Well, this is a similar diagram that shows the breakdown of outlays by the federal government from 1962 all the way, and these are going into projected outlays, to 2020. At the time of this video, we are right over here in 2017, and this chart was made in 2016, so it was made at around this time. But you see a couple of big categories. You first see the mandatory outlays, and in parentheses it says on autopilot. What does that mean? Well, these are commitments that the federal government has already made by law to people."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But you see a couple of big categories. You first see the mandatory outlays, and in parentheses it says on autopilot. What does that mean? Well, these are commitments that the federal government has already made by law to people. These are things like entitlements, like Social Security, like Medicare, and one interesting trend is these have grown in 1962 from 25% of the total federal budget to a projected almost 2 3rds of the federal budget in 2020. Now, the discretionary outlays are things that when we talk about the appropriations committees in the Senate or the House, this is what they're debating where to spend the money, and even though it might sound something that's just a nice to have, there's some pretty important things in the discretionary budget, things like military expenditure. And as you can see, the discretionary budget has gone from over 2 3rds of federal outlays to a little under 1 4th projected in 2020."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, these are commitments that the federal government has already made by law to people. These are things like entitlements, like Social Security, like Medicare, and one interesting trend is these have grown in 1962 from 25% of the total federal budget to a projected almost 2 3rds of the federal budget in 2020. Now, the discretionary outlays are things that when we talk about the appropriations committees in the Senate or the House, this is what they're debating where to spend the money, and even though it might sound something that's just a nice to have, there's some pretty important things in the discretionary budget, things like military expenditure. And as you can see, the discretionary budget has gone from over 2 3rds of federal outlays to a little under 1 4th projected in 2020. And then this top category, net interest, well, the federal government has a debt, and anyone who has a debt tends to pay interest on that debt. And so many people will often categorize this as a mandatory outlay as well because we need to pay the interest on that debt even though it's not officially a mandatory outlay. And to see how significant these entitlement programs are and how big of an impact they have, not just on the federal government's budget, but as a percentage of GDP, we have this visual right over here."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And as you can see, the discretionary budget has gone from over 2 3rds of federal outlays to a little under 1 4th projected in 2020. And then this top category, net interest, well, the federal government has a debt, and anyone who has a debt tends to pay interest on that debt. And so many people will often categorize this as a mandatory outlay as well because we need to pay the interest on that debt even though it's not officially a mandatory outlay. And to see how significant these entitlement programs are and how big of an impact they have, not just on the federal government's budget, but as a percentage of GDP, we have this visual right over here. And once again, this is projecting well into the future. This chart was created in 2016, so right about here, but you can see that these mandatory outlays as a percentage of the GDP here, so this is not just as a percentage of the budget, they are growing and growing and growing and expected to keep on growing while total revenue as a percentage of GDP is expected to stay flat. And take all of this with a grain of salt."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And to see how significant these entitlement programs are and how big of an impact they have, not just on the federal government's budget, but as a percentage of GDP, we have this visual right over here. And once again, this is projecting well into the future. This chart was created in 2016, so right about here, but you can see that these mandatory outlays as a percentage of the GDP here, so this is not just as a percentage of the budget, they are growing and growing and growing and expected to keep on growing while total revenue as a percentage of GDP is expected to stay flat. And take all of this with a grain of salt. This is based on assumptions made at the time when this diagram was made. If we have varying levels of economic growth or the tax policies change, it's possible that the total revenue as a percentage of GDP might change. Also, if there are changes to some of these entitlement programs like Social Security or the healthcare programs or some of the cost assumptions baked into this chart changes, well, then this diagram might change."}, {"video_title": "Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And take all of this with a grain of salt. This is based on assumptions made at the time when this diagram was made. If we have varying levels of economic growth or the tax policies change, it's possible that the total revenue as a percentage of GDP might change. Also, if there are changes to some of these entitlement programs like Social Security or the healthcare programs or some of the cost assumptions baked into this chart changes, well, then this diagram might change. But if you assume the data in this visual here, and the source is the White House in 2016, you see that the mandatory outlays from these entitlement programs and the net interest, which is also essentially mandatory, these are going to take up all of the revenue that the federal government collects. And so if the federal government wants to do anything above and beyond those things, discretionary spending, and once again, some of this discretionary spending is pretty important, like the military, well, then they would have to run a deficit in those years to fund those things or they would have to increase the total revenue. And the thing is, even once we get past this point, going to the 2040s all the way to the 2050s, it gets worse and worse and worse."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, why does this matter? Apart from just the innate value of voting rights in a democracy, it matters because who participates in the political process at any one time affects what political outcomes are. So as we go through these amendments and laws which increase voting rights, think about how each new group of voters might affect the overall opinion of the voting population. The first major expansion of voting rights happened in 1870 when the 15th Amendment was ratified. And the 15th Amendment extended suffrage, the right to vote, to African American men. And men in particular, at the time, women were also hoping to get the right to vote, but there really was only the political will to grant suffrage to African American men. Now, this happened immediately after the Civil War, which ended in 1865."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The first major expansion of voting rights happened in 1870 when the 15th Amendment was ratified. And the 15th Amendment extended suffrage, the right to vote, to African American men. And men in particular, at the time, women were also hoping to get the right to vote, but there really was only the political will to grant suffrage to African American men. Now, this happened immediately after the Civil War, which ended in 1865. Before the Civil War, really only white men had the right to vote. Now, the Civil War ended slavery, but it didn't clear up the question of what the legal citizenship status of formerly enslaved men and women would be. And a lot of states in the South passed laws after the Civil War, specifically denying the right to vote to African American men."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, this happened immediately after the Civil War, which ended in 1865. Before the Civil War, really only white men had the right to vote. Now, the Civil War ended slavery, but it didn't clear up the question of what the legal citizenship status of formerly enslaved men and women would be. And a lot of states in the South passed laws after the Civil War, specifically denying the right to vote to African American men. So in 1870, Congress kind of fought back against this, and they passed the 15th Amendment, which was then ratified by the states. The next notable expansion of voting rights didn't concern so much who got to vote as who people got to vote for. In 1913, the states ratified the 17th Amendment, which provided for the popular election of senators."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And a lot of states in the South passed laws after the Civil War, specifically denying the right to vote to African American men. So in 1870, Congress kind of fought back against this, and they passed the 15th Amendment, which was then ratified by the states. The next notable expansion of voting rights didn't concern so much who got to vote as who people got to vote for. In 1913, the states ratified the 17th Amendment, which provided for the popular election of senators. So before 1913, senators were actually appointed by state legislatures instead of directly elected by citizens, like members of the House of Representatives. And switching to popular election of senators is important because it gives citizens more say over the national government. So more say over who goes into Congress, and therefore more say over what kinds of laws that Congress passes."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In 1913, the states ratified the 17th Amendment, which provided for the popular election of senators. So before 1913, senators were actually appointed by state legislatures instead of directly elected by citizens, like members of the House of Representatives. And switching to popular election of senators is important because it gives citizens more say over the national government. So more say over who goes into Congress, and therefore more say over what kinds of laws that Congress passes. And in 1920, women finally got the right to vote in the 19th Amendment, which doubled the voting eligible population. Now let's talk about some more recent voting rights amendments and laws. In 1964 and 1965, there were two amendments and pieces of federal legislation that had a major impact on African American voting rights."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So more say over who goes into Congress, and therefore more say over what kinds of laws that Congress passes. And in 1920, women finally got the right to vote in the 19th Amendment, which doubled the voting eligible population. Now let's talk about some more recent voting rights amendments and laws. In 1964 and 1965, there were two amendments and pieces of federal legislation that had a major impact on African American voting rights. Now, although African American men technically got the right to vote in 1870, and African American women technically got the right to vote in 1920, there were a number of measures of voter suppression enacted in southern states that effectively prevented them from voting. One of these was the use of poll taxes, which is effectively paying money for the right to vote. The 24th Amendment outlawed that, and then the Voting Rights Act took that a step further by adding a number of other bans on voter suppression tactics in southern states."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In 1964 and 1965, there were two amendments and pieces of federal legislation that had a major impact on African American voting rights. Now, although African American men technically got the right to vote in 1870, and African American women technically got the right to vote in 1920, there were a number of measures of voter suppression enacted in southern states that effectively prevented them from voting. One of these was the use of poll taxes, which is effectively paying money for the right to vote. The 24th Amendment outlawed that, and then the Voting Rights Act took that a step further by adding a number of other bans on voter suppression tactics in southern states. So in addition to poll taxes, the Voting Rights Act banned literacy tests and forms of voter suppression like grandfather clauses, which were laws that said you could only vote if your grandfather had voted. And while you might think, oh, literacy tests don't sound that bad, it seems like a good idea to have a literate voting population, literacy tests really weren't fair because they were administered by local voting boards who got to decide who was and was not literate. So if you were an African American man, you could have been a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and still had your local board say, oh, you're not literate, so you're not eligible to vote."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The 24th Amendment outlawed that, and then the Voting Rights Act took that a step further by adding a number of other bans on voter suppression tactics in southern states. So in addition to poll taxes, the Voting Rights Act banned literacy tests and forms of voter suppression like grandfather clauses, which were laws that said you could only vote if your grandfather had voted. And while you might think, oh, literacy tests don't sound that bad, it seems like a good idea to have a literate voting population, literacy tests really weren't fair because they were administered by local voting boards who got to decide who was and was not literate. So if you were an African American man, you could have been a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and still had your local board say, oh, you're not literate, so you're not eligible to vote. So things like poll taxes and literacy tests and grandfather clauses, nowhere in the language of these voting laws did they say you can't vote if you're black, but they were very carefully crafted to specifically single out and suppress the votes of African Americans. The Voting Rights Act also provided for federal examiners who had the power to register people to vote to monitor elections in jurisdictions that had large black populations, but few registered black voters. And this effort was enormously successful."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So if you were an African American man, you could have been a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and still had your local board say, oh, you're not literate, so you're not eligible to vote. So things like poll taxes and literacy tests and grandfather clauses, nowhere in the language of these voting laws did they say you can't vote if you're black, but they were very carefully crafted to specifically single out and suppress the votes of African Americans. The Voting Rights Act also provided for federal examiners who had the power to register people to vote to monitor elections in jurisdictions that had large black populations, but few registered black voters. And this effort was enormously successful. By the end of 1965, 250,000 new African American voters had been registered in southern states. So imagine how all of these new participants might change legislative outcomes. Okay, there are two more things I'd like to discuss."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And this effort was enormously successful. By the end of 1965, 250,000 new African American voters had been registered in southern states. So imagine how all of these new participants might change legislative outcomes. Okay, there are two more things I'd like to discuss. Now, one aspect of voting rights you might not have heard of is that until 1971, when the 26th Amendment was ratified, you had to be 21 years old to vote. Now, you can kind of guess at the reason behind this amendment based on its year. In 1971, the United States was involved in the Vietnam War and young men were being drafted."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Okay, there are two more things I'd like to discuss. Now, one aspect of voting rights you might not have heard of is that until 1971, when the 26th Amendment was ratified, you had to be 21 years old to vote. Now, you can kind of guess at the reason behind this amendment based on its year. In 1971, the United States was involved in the Vietnam War and young men were being drafted. So it would have been possible to be drafted for the US Army at age 18 without ever having cast a vote. It's amazing to think that the right to vote for 18-year-olds is less than 50 years old. The last piece of legislation that I want to talk about is the Motor Voter Act, which was passed in 1993."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In 1971, the United States was involved in the Vietnam War and young men were being drafted. So it would have been possible to be drafted for the US Army at age 18 without ever having cast a vote. It's amazing to think that the right to vote for 18-year-olds is less than 50 years old. The last piece of legislation that I want to talk about is the Motor Voter Act, which was passed in 1993. The official name of this is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. But it's called the Motor Voter Act because it requires states to provide individuals with the opportunity to register to vote when they apply for or renew their driver's license. So this makes it easier to register to vote in the first place, and it makes it easier to maintain your voter registration if you move to a new state because you'll need to get a new driver's license."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The last piece of legislation that I want to talk about is the Motor Voter Act, which was passed in 1993. The official name of this is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. But it's called the Motor Voter Act because it requires states to provide individuals with the opportunity to register to vote when they apply for or renew their driver's license. So this makes it easier to register to vote in the first place, and it makes it easier to maintain your voter registration if you move to a new state because you'll need to get a new driver's license. So you can quickly make sure you get on the polls to vote in your new state. The Motor Voter Act also requires states to allow individuals to register by mail 30 days before a federal election, and to allow individuals to register to vote if they're going to an office providing services to people with disabilities or public assistance. So in general, the Motor Voter Act makes it easier for people to get registered to vote and to stay registered to vote."}, {"video_title": "Voting rights   Political participation   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this makes it easier to register to vote in the first place, and it makes it easier to maintain your voter registration if you move to a new state because you'll need to get a new driver's license. So you can quickly make sure you get on the polls to vote in your new state. The Motor Voter Act also requires states to allow individuals to register by mail 30 days before a federal election, and to allow individuals to register to vote if they're going to an office providing services to people with disabilities or public assistance. So in general, the Motor Voter Act makes it easier for people to get registered to vote and to stay registered to vote. So it kind of removes barriers to political participation. So I know there's a lot of information here. It's a lot to take in, but the biggest thing to take away from this, again, is how participation affects outcomes."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And we could start at the most foundational of ideas, and that's the notion of natural rights. John Locke, one of the significant Enlightenment thinkers, describes rights like life, liberty, and you might expect me to say pursuit of happiness, which is what we see in the Declaration of Independence, but John Locke refers to life, liberty, and property. But even though his version is a little bit different than what ends up in the Declaration of Independence, most historians believe that Thomas Jefferson was heavily influenced by John Locke's idea of natural rights when Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. And the idea here is that these are rights that people should be born with, that should never be taken away from them. And in the video on social contract, we talk about the idea of why someone would form a government. They would form a government, they would give some rights to a government in order to protect these basic rights, things like life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness. And so you might have some other rights that one would say in a state of nature people might have, the right to do physical harm on others, the right to imprison others, the right to tax others."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And the idea here is that these are rights that people should be born with, that should never be taken away from them. And in the video on social contract, we talk about the idea of why someone would form a government. They would form a government, they would give some rights to a government in order to protect these basic rights, things like life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness. And so you might have some other rights that one would say in a state of nature people might have, the right to do physical harm on others, the right to imprison others, the right to tax others. But in a social contract, we decide, hey, instead of everyone trying to figure out things on their own, let's give these rights to a government. And in exchange, the government should protect, should protect all of these rights for the individuals. And once again, this is review from the social contract video."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And so you might have some other rights that one would say in a state of nature people might have, the right to do physical harm on others, the right to imprison others, the right to tax others. But in a social contract, we decide, hey, instead of everyone trying to figure out things on their own, let's give these rights to a government. And in exchange, the government should protect, should protect all of these rights for the individuals. And once again, this is review from the social contract video. This is a notion of a social contract. Now the next question is, all right, so if we are willing to engage in this social contract with a government, what type of a government should it be? And throughout most of human history, governments have been things like monarchies, where you have a single individual, maybe a king or queen, an emperor, some type of a conqueror, who is the sovereign, who rules over the state."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And once again, this is review from the social contract video. This is a notion of a social contract. Now the next question is, all right, so if we are willing to engage in this social contract with a government, what type of a government should it be? And throughout most of human history, governments have been things like monarchies, where you have a single individual, maybe a king or queen, an emperor, some type of a conqueror, who is the sovereign, who rules over the state. But you could have, you could, instead of having one, you could have a small group, which would be an oligarchy. Or you could go to the other extreme, where the people are sovereign. And the word for that, and this is a key idea for the United States, is popular, popular sovereignty."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And throughout most of human history, governments have been things like monarchies, where you have a single individual, maybe a king or queen, an emperor, some type of a conqueror, who is the sovereign, who rules over the state. But you could have, you could, instead of having one, you could have a small group, which would be an oligarchy. Or you could go to the other extreme, where the people are sovereign. And the word for that, and this is a key idea for the United States, is popular, popular sovereignty. The people are sovereign. The government is accountable to the people. Sometimes this could be referred to as democracy."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And the word for that, and this is a key idea for the United States, is popular, popular sovereignty. The people are sovereign. The government is accountable to the people. Sometimes this could be referred to as democracy. Now the founding fathers of the United States were a little bit suspicious of pure democracy or direct popular sovereignty. They were afraid that if you start having factions and a majority faction were to come to power, if you have a straight democracy, then they might use that power to strip some of the natural rights of, say, their political enemies or people that they just don't agree with. And so you have this other idea of limited government."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "Sometimes this could be referred to as democracy. Now the founding fathers of the United States were a little bit suspicious of pure democracy or direct popular sovereignty. They were afraid that if you start having factions and a majority faction were to come to power, if you have a straight democracy, then they might use that power to strip some of the natural rights of, say, their political enemies or people that they just don't agree with. And so you have this other idea of limited government. Limited government. And some of the key things that limit the government, you could just say generally the rule of law, things like the Constitution, including how the government is structured, the checks and balances in it, the Bill of Rights, clearly is a check on government. And you don't just have limited government when you have a democracy."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And so you have this other idea of limited government. Limited government. And some of the key things that limit the government, you could just say generally the rule of law, things like the Constitution, including how the government is structured, the checks and balances in it, the Bill of Rights, clearly is a check on government. And you don't just have limited government when you have a democracy. You could have a limited government even in a monarchy. The United Kingdom is officially a constitutional monarchy where you have a monarch whose sovereign has very limited powers because of things like the rule of law. Now the last idea that we're going to talk about in this video is the notion of a republic or the idea of republicanism."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And you don't just have limited government when you have a democracy. You could have a limited government even in a monarchy. The United Kingdom is officially a constitutional monarchy where you have a monarch whose sovereign has very limited powers because of things like the rule of law. Now the last idea that we're going to talk about in this video is the notion of a republic or the idea of republicanism. Because the founding fathers didn't actually like calling the United States a democracy. Instead, they favored calling it a republic. And the word republic can mean different things to different people today, depending on what context you use."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "Now the last idea that we're going to talk about in this video is the notion of a republic or the idea of republicanism. Because the founding fathers didn't actually like calling the United States a democracy. Instead, they favored calling it a republic. And the word republic can mean different things to different people today, depending on what context you use. To some folks today, it means any form of government that's not a monarchy. To other folks, it means, okay, you have a democracy, you have popular sovereignty, but you have limited government. You still have rights that protect minorities, rights that make sure that even if people are not in the majority, they are protected."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And the word republic can mean different things to different people today, depending on what context you use. To some folks today, it means any form of government that's not a monarchy. To other folks, it means, okay, you have a democracy, you have popular sovereignty, but you have limited government. You still have rights that protect minorities, rights that make sure that even if people are not in the majority, they are protected. To the founding fathers, they had a version of this notion of republic. They did view a republic as something that would prevent the passions of an unfettered, pure democracy. But they thought it came mainly by having a representative democracy."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "You still have rights that protect minorities, rights that make sure that even if people are not in the majority, they are protected. To the founding fathers, they had a version of this notion of republic. They did view a republic as something that would prevent the passions of an unfettered, pure democracy. But they thought it came mainly by having a representative democracy. That if you had a smaller group of elected representatives, as opposed to everyone getting involved in every issue, that they could calm the passions of the crowds, so to speak. They also thought it was logistically more practical. Sure, ancient Athens could have something closer to a pure democracy, but that was just a small city-state."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "But they thought it came mainly by having a representative democracy. That if you had a smaller group of elected representatives, as opposed to everyone getting involved in every issue, that they could calm the passions of the crowds, so to speak. They also thought it was logistically more practical. Sure, ancient Athens could have something closer to a pure democracy, but that was just a small city-state. Well, here, even the 13 colonies were significantly more vast, and obviously, the United States would become even more vast than that. And to appreciate this notion of a republic, right over here is a quote from James Madison in The Federalist Papers, number 10. And just for some context on what The Federalist Papers even were, as we mentioned, shortly after the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers start drafting the Articles of Confederation."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "Sure, ancient Athens could have something closer to a pure democracy, but that was just a small city-state. Well, here, even the 13 colonies were significantly more vast, and obviously, the United States would become even more vast than that. And to appreciate this notion of a republic, right over here is a quote from James Madison in The Federalist Papers, number 10. And just for some context on what The Federalist Papers even were, as we mentioned, shortly after the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers start drafting the Articles of Confederation. They go into effect in 1781. But this is really a loose confederation of states that each individually think of themselves as sovereign states. And it's really a pact that they'll engage in war together, diplomacy together, free trade."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And just for some context on what The Federalist Papers even were, as we mentioned, shortly after the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers start drafting the Articles of Confederation. They go into effect in 1781. But this is really a loose confederation of states that each individually think of themselves as sovereign states. And it's really a pact that they'll engage in war together, diplomacy together, free trade. But you have Shay's Rebellion, and it's very clear, and we'll talk about this in other videos, that the Articles of Confederation are not powerful enough. And so you have a constitutional convention in mid-1787 in which James Madison is a central figure. Some people discuss him as the father of the US Constitution."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And it's really a pact that they'll engage in war together, diplomacy together, free trade. But you have Shay's Rebellion, and it's very clear, and we'll talk about this in other videos, that the Articles of Confederation are not powerful enough. And so you have a constitutional convention in mid-1787 in which James Madison is a central figure. Some people discuss him as the father of the US Constitution. They draft what is today the Constitution, but then they have to sell it to the states in order for it to be ratified. Alexander Hamilton has the idea of, hey, why don't we publish a series of papers? And they eventually publish 85 papers, which will collectively be known as The Federalist Papers."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "Some people discuss him as the father of the US Constitution. They draft what is today the Constitution, but then they have to sell it to the states in order for it to be ratified. Alexander Hamilton has the idea of, hey, why don't we publish a series of papers? And they eventually publish 85 papers, which will collectively be known as The Federalist Papers. And Hamilton writes most of them, but he also recruits James Madison and John Jay. And Federalist Papers Number 10, which is perhaps the most famous, is James Madison's discussion of how do you avoid factions taking over the government and doing things that are not in the interest of the people. And I encourage you to read all of Federalist Papers Number 10 but I have a very small quote here."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And they eventually publish 85 papers, which will collectively be known as The Federalist Papers. And Hamilton writes most of them, but he also recruits James Madison and John Jay. And Federalist Papers Number 10, which is perhaps the most famous, is James Madison's discussion of how do you avoid factions taking over the government and doing things that are not in the interest of the people. And I encourage you to read all of Federalist Papers Number 10 but I have a very small quote here. And this is James Madison's notion of what a republic was. And he thought the United States should be a republic. The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are, first, the delegation of government in the latter, so he's talking about a republic, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "And I encourage you to read all of Federalist Papers Number 10 but I have a very small quote here. And this is James Madison's notion of what a republic was. And he thought the United States should be a republic. The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are, first, the delegation of government in the latter, so he's talking about a republic, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. So he's really talking about representative democracy. But he thought this was a key component of being a republic. Secondly, the greater number of citizens and greater sphere of country over which the latter may be extended."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are, first, the delegation of government in the latter, so he's talking about a republic, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. So he's really talking about representative democracy. But he thought this was a key component of being a republic. Secondly, the greater number of citizens and greater sphere of country over which the latter may be extended. That only through a representative government could you actually govern over 13 colonies or even beyond 13 colonies. And that's why today, obviously, you might have had something closer to a pure democracy in ancient Athens, which was a city-state. But today, almost any democracy is some form of representative democracy, which James Madison would consider to be a republic."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "Secondly, the greater number of citizens and greater sphere of country over which the latter may be extended. That only through a representative government could you actually govern over 13 colonies or even beyond 13 colonies. And that's why today, obviously, you might have had something closer to a pure democracy in ancient Athens, which was a city-state. But today, almost any democracy is some form of representative democracy, which James Madison would consider to be a republic. But if you wanted to classify the United States today, a fair term might be it is a democratic republic. You definitely have popular sovereignty. The people are considered sovereign."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "But today, almost any democracy is some form of representative democracy, which James Madison would consider to be a republic. But if you wanted to classify the United States today, a fair term might be it is a democratic republic. You definitely have popular sovereignty. The people are considered sovereign. But they don't rule directly. They rule through representatives, which by Madison's definition would make it a republic. So now that you're armed with some of these basic ideas, I encourage you to engage even more with some of the founding documents for the United States."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals of US government.mp3", "Sentence": "The people are considered sovereign. But they don't rule directly. They rule through representatives, which by Madison's definition would make it a republic. So now that you're armed with some of these basic ideas, I encourage you to engage even more with some of the founding documents for the United States. And on top of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, I encourage you to read as many of the Federalist Papers as possible because it's really an explanation of the ideas behind the US Constitution. And you should start with Federalist Papers number 10. As you'll see, James Madison is quite insightful."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Let's talk about primary elections, which are often known as primaries. One way to think about them is that they're just preliminary elections used to get down to a fewer number of candidates. A very simple example would be, let's say there is a congressional seat in your district, and there's three folks who are interested in that position who associate themselves with the Democrats, and let's say there's also three folks in your district who are interested in running for that position who associate themselves with the Republicans. There are some situations where you can have just a big preliminary election where they all run against each other. We'll talk about that in a second. But usually, you have a situation where they try to think about, well, let's just pick one to represent the Democrats, and let's just pick one to represent the Republicans. And so that's where the primary election would happen."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "There are some situations where you can have just a big preliminary election where they all run against each other. We'll talk about that in a second. But usually, you have a situation where they try to think about, well, let's just pick one to represent the Democrats, and let's just pick one to represent the Republicans. And so that's where the primary election would happen. So you would have a Democratic primary where these folks would run against each other, and whoever gets the most votes would then go on to represent the Democratic Party in that election. So let's say that person wins, then they will go on into the general election. Likewise, these three folks would run against each other in the Republican primary."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so that's where the primary election would happen. So you would have a Democratic primary where these folks would run against each other, and whoever gets the most votes would then go on to represent the Democratic Party in that election. So let's say that person wins, then they will go on into the general election. Likewise, these three folks would run against each other in the Republican primary. And whoever gets the most votes, let's say it's that person right over there, they would go to the general election to go against, likely, the Democrat right over here. So this is the person who would go against the Democrat, and then they are going to compete in the general election against each other, head to head. And then whoever gets that would get the congressional seat."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Likewise, these three folks would run against each other in the Republican primary. And whoever gets the most votes, let's say it's that person right over there, they would go to the general election to go against, likely, the Democrat right over here. So this is the person who would go against the Democrat, and then they are going to compete in the general election against each other, head to head. And then whoever gets that would get the congressional seat. Now, even in this type of primary, you could call this a partisan primary, there is an interesting question. Who votes in this Democratic Party primary? Who votes in that, and who votes in the Republican Party primary?"}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then whoever gets that would get the congressional seat. Now, even in this type of primary, you could call this a partisan primary, there is an interesting question. Who votes in this Democratic Party primary? Who votes in that, and who votes in the Republican Party primary? And there's actually two systems for this, or two general buckets, and there's some nuances from region to region. But one way is that, well, only registered Democrats could vote in the Democratic primary, pick who represents their party in the general, and only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary. That situation where only registered folks can vote in their respective primaries, that is called a closed primary."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Who votes in that, and who votes in the Republican Party primary? And there's actually two systems for this, or two general buckets, and there's some nuances from region to region. But one way is that, well, only registered Democrats could vote in the Democratic primary, pick who represents their party in the general, and only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary. That situation where only registered folks can vote in their respective primaries, that is called a closed primary. It's called closed because it's not open to just anyone who wants to vote in the primary. Only the people who have already registered in that party can vote. Now, you can imagine the opposite of that is the open primary."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "That situation where only registered folks can vote in their respective primaries, that is called a closed primary. It's called closed because it's not open to just anyone who wants to vote in the primary. Only the people who have already registered in that party can vote. Now, you can imagine the opposite of that is the open primary. So open primary, where even though these are partisan primaries, you are trying to figure out who's going to represent the Democrats, and who's going to represent the Republicans, you can allow people who are either not affiliated with the party, or even people who are affiliated with the other party to vote in your primary. So, for example, in this Democratic primary, there could be, for some reason, folks who feel passionate about this candidate who are actually registered Republicans, but who they want to vote in this primary. Or you could have people who are unaffiliated who would vote in this primary if we are dealing with an open primary."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, you can imagine the opposite of that is the open primary. So open primary, where even though these are partisan primaries, you are trying to figure out who's going to represent the Democrats, and who's going to represent the Republicans, you can allow people who are either not affiliated with the party, or even people who are affiliated with the other party to vote in your primary. So, for example, in this Democratic primary, there could be, for some reason, folks who feel passionate about this candidate who are actually registered Republicans, but who they want to vote in this primary. Or you could have people who are unaffiliated who would vote in this primary if we are dealing with an open primary. Now, one interesting question is, how could the dynamics change if we're dealing with a open versus a closed primary? Well, political scientists like to think a lot about this, and even states like to think about this in terms of what is appropriate, what is most representative, what gives the people of that state kind of the fairest voice in their elections. Now, people who like closed primaries might say, well, look, we're trying to figure out who represents the Democratic Party, it should only be Democrats."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or you could have people who are unaffiliated who would vote in this primary if we are dealing with an open primary. Now, one interesting question is, how could the dynamics change if we're dealing with a open versus a closed primary? Well, political scientists like to think a lot about this, and even states like to think about this in terms of what is appropriate, what is most representative, what gives the people of that state kind of the fairest voice in their elections. Now, people who like closed primaries might say, well, look, we're trying to figure out who represents the Democratic Party, it should only be Democrats. We're trying to figure out who represents the Republican Party, it should only be Republicans. Now, criticism of closed primaries might be, well, if you limit who gets to vote in the primary, then these candidates are only going to cater to the base. They're only going to cater to the interests of people in their party, and in particular, they might cater to people who are at the extremes of their party."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, people who like closed primaries might say, well, look, we're trying to figure out who represents the Democratic Party, it should only be Democrats. We're trying to figure out who represents the Republican Party, it should only be Republicans. Now, criticism of closed primaries might be, well, if you limit who gets to vote in the primary, then these candidates are only going to cater to the base. They're only going to cater to the interests of people in their party, and in particular, they might cater to people who are at the extremes of their party. For example, let's say we have a situation like this. Let's say that this is the population right over here, and people at the right end, these are conservatives, conservatives, conservative, and these folks right over here are liberal. And if you were to look at the population as a whole, let's say the distribution in the population, let's say it looks something like this."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "They're only going to cater to the interests of people in their party, and in particular, they might cater to people who are at the extremes of their party. For example, let's say we have a situation like this. Let's say that this is the population right over here, and people at the right end, these are conservatives, conservatives, conservative, and these folks right over here are liberal. And if you were to look at the population as a whole, let's say the distribution in the population, let's say it looks something like this. You have some people here who are quite liberal, and then you have actually the bulk of the people who are someplace in between, and then you have another bump of folks who are actually quite conservative. So you would guess that, hey, look, you know, a view that's someplace in between, maybe a moderate view, would actually maybe be most representative of the people, but if you have closed primaries, what might happen? Well, the Democratic primary, the people who would be eligible to vote would be these people right over here, would be these people, the people who have registered as Democrats."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And if you were to look at the population as a whole, let's say the distribution in the population, let's say it looks something like this. You have some people here who are quite liberal, and then you have actually the bulk of the people who are someplace in between, and then you have another bump of folks who are actually quite conservative. So you would guess that, hey, look, you know, a view that's someplace in between, maybe a moderate view, would actually maybe be most representative of the people, but if you have closed primaries, what might happen? Well, the Democratic primary, the people who would be eligible to vote would be these people right over here, would be these people, the people who have registered as Democrats. And in the Republican primary, well, only the registered, if it's closed, only the registered Republicans would vote, maybe these people right over here. And these people in the middle, these would be the unaffiliated with a party people. And so if you have different candidates here, let's say that this is candidate one, where they're here on the spectrum, this is candidate two, which is here on the spectrum, and candidate three is here on the spectrum, you could imagine that for this population, they're all going to say things that speak to this group."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Well, the Democratic primary, the people who would be eligible to vote would be these people right over here, would be these people, the people who have registered as Democrats. And in the Republican primary, well, only the registered, if it's closed, only the registered Republicans would vote, maybe these people right over here. And these people in the middle, these would be the unaffiliated with a party people. And so if you have different candidates here, let's say that this is candidate one, where they're here on the spectrum, this is candidate two, which is here on the spectrum, and candidate three is here on the spectrum, you could imagine that for this population, they're all going to say things that speak to this group. And in particular, they might actually, the person who wins might actually be very successful of getting the people at the extreme left, right over here. And so that person maybe is the person who goes off to the general election. Likewise, the same thing might be happening on the Republican side."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so if you have different candidates here, let's say that this is candidate one, where they're here on the spectrum, this is candidate two, which is here on the spectrum, and candidate three is here on the spectrum, you could imagine that for this population, they're all going to say things that speak to this group. And in particular, they might actually, the person who wins might actually be very successful of getting the people at the extreme left, right over here. And so that person maybe is the person who goes off to the general election. Likewise, the same thing might be happening on the Republican side. You have the different candidates, maybe their personal views put them right over here, and it's this person who is furthest to the right who's really able to appeal to the folks right over here who ends up winning and represents the Republican Party. Well then what happens in the general election? The entire population has to pick between folks that actually are more indicative of either extreme, that maybe the closed primary system, it wouldn't have been so good for a candidate who is reasonably moderate on the Democratic side, maybe someone is there, or a candidate who is right over here."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Likewise, the same thing might be happening on the Republican side. You have the different candidates, maybe their personal views put them right over here, and it's this person who is furthest to the right who's really able to appeal to the folks right over here who ends up winning and represents the Republican Party. Well then what happens in the general election? The entire population has to pick between folks that actually are more indicative of either extreme, that maybe the closed primary system, it wouldn't have been so good for a candidate who is reasonably moderate on the Democratic side, maybe someone is there, or a candidate who is right over here. Or maybe there's a candidate whose views are right in the middle. First of all, if they want to represent a party, they would have to pick one of these parties. And then to have a shot, they would have to represent views that would be to the left or to the right of where they truly are, and maybe they wouldn't have as good of a shot as the people who actually are quite liberal, or the folks who actually are quite conservative."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The entire population has to pick between folks that actually are more indicative of either extreme, that maybe the closed primary system, it wouldn't have been so good for a candidate who is reasonably moderate on the Democratic side, maybe someone is there, or a candidate who is right over here. Or maybe there's a candidate whose views are right in the middle. First of all, if they want to represent a party, they would have to pick one of these parties. And then to have a shot, they would have to represent views that would be to the left or to the right of where they truly are, and maybe they wouldn't have as good of a shot as the people who actually are quite liberal, or the folks who actually are quite conservative. So that's a criticism of the closed primary. An open primary might make this a little bit better because you have these registered Democrats here, but folks from here might decide, hey, I wanna go vote there as well, so they might moderate things. Or folks from here might say, hey, I wanna go vote here as well."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then to have a shot, they would have to represent views that would be to the left or to the right of where they truly are, and maybe they wouldn't have as good of a shot as the people who actually are quite liberal, or the folks who actually are quite conservative. So that's a criticism of the closed primary. An open primary might make this a little bit better because you have these registered Democrats here, but folks from here might decide, hey, I wanna go vote there as well, so they might moderate things. Or folks from here might say, hey, I wanna go vote here as well. Now critics of an open primary would say, well, those aren't the people who really are registered in that party, and you could also have a phenomenon of rating, where people, maybe on the Republican side, could say, look, you know what? I know who's gonna win here. The Republican primary doesn't need my vote."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Or folks from here might say, hey, I wanna go vote here as well. Now critics of an open primary would say, well, those aren't the people who really are registered in that party, and you could also have a phenomenon of rating, where people, maybe on the Republican side, could say, look, you know what? I know who's gonna win here. The Republican primary doesn't need my vote. I'm gonna go and try to pick the weakest candidate on the other side so that in the general election, my candidate has the best shot. Now a third type of primary is known as a blanket primary, often a nonpartisan blanket primary. In a nonpartisan blanket primary, instead of going through this partisan process, all the candidates here would go into one preliminary election."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The Republican primary doesn't need my vote. I'm gonna go and try to pick the weakest candidate on the other side so that in the general election, my candidate has the best shot. Now a third type of primary is known as a blanket primary, often a nonpartisan blanket primary. In a nonpartisan blanket primary, instead of going through this partisan process, all the candidates here would go into one preliminary election. And in that preliminary election, the top two candidates would then go on to the general election. Now what's interesting about that, so two candidates are going to move on in a blanket primary, a nonpartisan blanket primary, and what's interesting there is you can actually get two candidates from the same party going. Proponents of a blanket primary say, hey, this is the fairest of it all."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In a nonpartisan blanket primary, instead of going through this partisan process, all the candidates here would go into one preliminary election. And in that preliminary election, the top two candidates would then go on to the general election. Now what's interesting about that, so two candidates are going to move on in a blanket primary, a nonpartisan blanket primary, and what's interesting there is you can actually get two candidates from the same party going. Proponents of a blanket primary say, hey, this is the fairest of it all. Instead of making things partisan, just let everyone run against everyone else, and the top two will then get to the general election. Now you'll see all three of these in the United States at congressional elections or even statewide elections, but if we're thinking about presidential elections, we're thinking mainly about these two. And when we're talking about presidential election, these are part of primary season where it's thinking about how many delegates candidates would get during the national convention where they actually pick their candidate."}, {"video_title": "Open primaries, closed primaries, and blanket primaries   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Proponents of a blanket primary say, hey, this is the fairest of it all. Instead of making things partisan, just let everyone run against everyone else, and the top two will then get to the general election. Now you'll see all three of these in the United States at congressional elections or even statewide elections, but if we're thinking about presidential elections, we're thinking mainly about these two. And when we're talking about presidential election, these are part of primary season where it's thinking about how many delegates candidates would get during the national convention where they actually pick their candidate. I'll leave you there. It's an interesting way to think about the different ways of voting, especially voting in a preliminary way to get down to a fewer number of candidates. I'll let you think about which one you prefer."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Formal powers are those that are explicitly listed in the United States Constitution. And we're also going to talk about informal powers a little bit in this video and in a lot more depth in future videos. The formal powers are listed in Article Two of the United States Constitution. And it starts in Section One, where it says, the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. And this simple statement alone has a lot of implications. As we will see, it is used as a justification for many of the informal powers of the President. The President is the executive."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And it starts in Section One, where it says, the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. And this simple statement alone has a lot of implications. As we will see, it is used as a justification for many of the informal powers of the President. The President is the executive. They run the government. Congress can pass laws and set budgets. Judicial branch can interpret laws or declare them unconstitutional."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The President is the executive. They run the government. Congress can pass laws and set budgets. Judicial branch can interpret laws or declare them unconstitutional. But the executive power is vested in the President. But the bulk of the powers are listed in Section Two and Section Three. So let's read this together."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Judicial branch can interpret laws or declare them unconstitutional. But the executive power is vested in the President. But the bulk of the powers are listed in Section Two and Section Three. So let's read this together. And let's see if we can classify these different powers as executive, legislative, foreign policy or military, or judicial powers. So Section Two of Article Two starts off with, the President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. So this is clearly a military power."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So let's read this together. And let's see if we can classify these different powers as executive, legislative, foreign policy or military, or judicial powers. So Section Two of Article Two starts off with, the President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. So this is clearly a military power. You have the President of the United States being in charge of the nation's military. It then goes on to say, he may require the opinion in writing of the Principal Officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. So this is clearly an executive power or an administrative power, where he can go to the head of any of the executive departments and say, hey, I need your opinion on something, potentially in writing."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is clearly a military power. You have the President of the United States being in charge of the nation's military. It then goes on to say, he may require the opinion in writing of the Principal Officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. So this is clearly an executive power or an administrative power, where he can go to the head of any of the executive departments and say, hey, I need your opinion on something, potentially in writing. Then it goes on to say, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. So this is a judicial power, grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses. Then we read, he shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is clearly an executive power or an administrative power, where he can go to the head of any of the executive departments and say, hey, I need your opinion on something, potentially in writing. Then it goes on to say, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. So this is a judicial power, grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses. Then we read, he shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. So this power to make treaties is clearly a foreign policy power, although it does have to be ratified by the Senate. And he shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of department."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then we read, he shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. So this power to make treaties is clearly a foreign policy power, although it does have to be ratified by the Senate. And he shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of department. So all of these lines here talk about the president's power of appointment, which is why I underlined it in the executive or the administrative color, although it touches on appointments that affect these other powers. So for example, the appointment of ambassadors is clearly going to have foreign policy implications. And judges of the Supreme Court, this could have huge judicial implications, so I will underline that in blue as well."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of department. So all of these lines here talk about the president's power of appointment, which is why I underlined it in the executive or the administrative color, although it touches on appointments that affect these other powers. So for example, the appointment of ambassadors is clearly going to have foreign policy implications. And judges of the Supreme Court, this could have huge judicial implications, so I will underline that in blue as well. It then goes on to say, and this is in relation to the appointments we just talked about, the president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, because remember, it just talked about how the Senate has to confirm appointments. But the president does have the power to fill up vacancies while the Senate is in recess, while they're not in session, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. And then in section three, we read, he, the president, although it could be a she, shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he or she shall judge necessary and expedient."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And judges of the Supreme Court, this could have huge judicial implications, so I will underline that in blue as well. It then goes on to say, and this is in relation to the appointments we just talked about, the president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, because remember, it just talked about how the Senate has to confirm appointments. But the president does have the power to fill up vacancies while the Senate is in recess, while they're not in session, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. And then in section three, we read, he, the president, although it could be a she, shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he or she shall judge necessary and expedient. He may on extraordinary occasions convene both houses or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper. So these are all ways, these are all powers that the president has in the legislative process. And then it goes back to foreign policy."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then in section three, we read, he, the president, although it could be a she, shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he or she shall judge necessary and expedient. He may on extraordinary occasions convene both houses or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper. So these are all ways, these are all powers that the president has in the legislative process. And then it goes back to foreign policy. He shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. This statement, he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed in conjunction with what is sometimes known as the Vesting Clause, which is at the very beginning of Article II, Section 1, that simply states the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then it goes back to foreign policy. He shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. This statement, he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed in conjunction with what is sometimes known as the Vesting Clause, which is at the very beginning of Article II, Section 1, that simply states the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States. These two clauses combined have been used to justify what we will see are called informal powers, which we will go into much more depth into future videos, especially the power of the executive order. And so in summary, if we wanna look at the executive powers of the president, the power to take care that laws be faithfully executed, nominating officials with confirmation from the Senate, request written opinions of administrative officials, fill administrative vacancies during recesses. Then you have the legislative powers."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "This statement, he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed in conjunction with what is sometimes known as the Vesting Clause, which is at the very beginning of Article II, Section 1, that simply states the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States. These two clauses combined have been used to justify what we will see are called informal powers, which we will go into much more depth into future videos, especially the power of the executive order. And so in summary, if we wanna look at the executive powers of the president, the power to take care that laws be faithfully executed, nominating officials with confirmation from the Senate, request written opinions of administrative officials, fill administrative vacancies during recesses. Then you have the legislative powers. Present info on the State of the Union, recommend legislation to Congress, convene both houses on extraordinary occasions, adjourn Congress if House and Senate cannot agree, and can veto legislation, although Congress can overrule with a 2 3rds vote. And then you have the foreign policy and military powers, which include being commander-in-chief of the armed forces, making treaties which have to be ratified by the Senate, nominate ambassadors, receive ambassadors, and provide diplomatic recognition to other governments. And then finally, the judicial powers that we saw in Article Two, reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, and the power to nominate federal judges, including US Supreme Court judges."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then you have the legislative powers. Present info on the State of the Union, recommend legislation to Congress, convene both houses on extraordinary occasions, adjourn Congress if House and Senate cannot agree, and can veto legislation, although Congress can overrule with a 2 3rds vote. And then you have the foreign policy and military powers, which include being commander-in-chief of the armed forces, making treaties which have to be ratified by the Senate, nominate ambassadors, receive ambassadors, and provide diplomatic recognition to other governments. And then finally, the judicial powers that we saw in Article Two, reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, and the power to nominate federal judges, including US Supreme Court judges. Now as I touched on, these are the formal powers, but there's also what are known as informal powers, and we'll talk more about these in other videos. The president has a unique role in the federal government and in national discourse as a whole, and because of that, they have a lot of bargaining and persuasion power. Now as we also touched on, we have an informal power of executive orders, which is derived from the formal powers to take care that laws be faithfully executed, and the fact that the power of the executive is vested in the president."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And then finally, the judicial powers that we saw in Article Two, reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, and the power to nominate federal judges, including US Supreme Court judges. Now as I touched on, these are the formal powers, but there's also what are known as informal powers, and we'll talk more about these in other videos. The president has a unique role in the federal government and in national discourse as a whole, and because of that, they have a lot of bargaining and persuasion power. Now as we also touched on, we have an informal power of executive orders, which is derived from the formal powers to take care that laws be faithfully executed, and the fact that the power of the executive is vested in the president. You also have things called signing statements, which we'll do future videos on, which is when a law gets passed by Congress, the president can issue a document known as a signing statement, which interprets that law, and as you can imagine, that interpretation of the law could be very, very influential. And then you also have executive agreements. These are agreements with foreign governments that do not have to be ratified by the US Senate."}, {"video_title": "Formal and informal powers of the US president   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Now as we also touched on, we have an informal power of executive orders, which is derived from the formal powers to take care that laws be faithfully executed, and the fact that the power of the executive is vested in the president. You also have things called signing statements, which we'll do future videos on, which is when a law gets passed by Congress, the president can issue a document known as a signing statement, which interprets that law, and as you can imagine, that interpretation of the law could be very, very influential. And then you also have executive agreements. These are agreements with foreign governments that do not have to be ratified by the US Senate. So they're not formal treaties, but they can be agreements with governments. So I will leave you there. As you can see, the president has many tools at their disposal to influence the policymaking process."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "But before we start looking at the documents themselves, let's just make sure we understand the context in which they were written. As we enter into the mid-1770s, you have the beginning of the American Revolutionary War, which begins in 1775. A little more than a year after the beginning of the war, you have the Second Continental Congress decide to formally declare independence on July 2nd, and the Declaration of Independence, which we will study a bit in this video, is formally approved on July 4th, 1776, which is when we now celebrate Independence Day, even though some could argue that it was July 2nd. Now, as soon as the colonies decide that they are independent from the kingdom of Great Britain, they have to think about how do we govern ourselves. And so within roughly a week, a little more than a week, after the Declaration of Independence is approved, they start drafting the Articles of Confederation. Remember, the Revolutionary War is still going on. Eventually, what will be known as the Articles of Confederation go into effect in 1781."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "Now, as soon as the colonies decide that they are independent from the kingdom of Great Britain, they have to think about how do we govern ourselves. And so within roughly a week, a little more than a week, after the Declaration of Independence is approved, they start drafting the Articles of Confederation. Remember, the Revolutionary War is still going on. Eventually, what will be known as the Articles of Confederation go into effect in 1781. Now, this Articles of Confederation really treat the various colonies as you could almost view it as separate states that agree to work together for purposes of getting independence from Great Britain, for purposes of fighting the war, for purposes of diplomacy. Now, over the course of the next several years, it becomes clear, especially through things like Shay's Rebellion, which we will look at in other videos, that the Articles of Confederation don't provide a strong enough central government. And so in May 1787, you have what is called as the Constitutional Convention convening."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "Eventually, what will be known as the Articles of Confederation go into effect in 1781. Now, this Articles of Confederation really treat the various colonies as you could almost view it as separate states that agree to work together for purposes of getting independence from Great Britain, for purposes of fighting the war, for purposes of diplomacy. Now, over the course of the next several years, it becomes clear, especially through things like Shay's Rebellion, which we will look at in other videos, that the Articles of Confederation don't provide a strong enough central government. And so in May 1787, you have what is called as the Constitutional Convention convening. It's presided over by George Washington, who led the Americans in the Revolutionary War, which they eventually will win, as you see, and obviously we're an independent country now. And the original intent of the Constitutional Convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation. But folks like Madison and Hamilton were really intent on just completely replacing it."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "And so in May 1787, you have what is called as the Constitutional Convention convening. It's presided over by George Washington, who led the Americans in the Revolutionary War, which they eventually will win, as you see, and obviously we're an independent country now. And the original intent of the Constitutional Convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation. But folks like Madison and Hamilton were really intent on just completely replacing it. And what they replaced it with was what is now the US Constitution, which goes into effect in March of 1789. And shortly thereafter, you have the beginning of Washington's two terms. And to be clear, the idea of even having a powerful executive, the idea of even having a president, was not present in the Articles of Confederation."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "But folks like Madison and Hamilton were really intent on just completely replacing it. And what they replaced it with was what is now the US Constitution, which goes into effect in March of 1789. And shortly thereafter, you have the beginning of Washington's two terms. And to be clear, the idea of even having a powerful executive, the idea of even having a president, was not present in the Articles of Confederation. That comes with the Constitution. So with that context out of the way, let's look at especially the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. So here is the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson and edited by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "And to be clear, the idea of even having a powerful executive, the idea of even having a president, was not present in the Articles of Confederation. That comes with the Constitution. So with that context out of the way, let's look at especially the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. So here is the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson and edited by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. And I encourage you to pause this video and first try to read it on your own and see if you can identify these ideas of natural rights, limited government, popular sovereignty, republicanism, and social contract. Okay, let's read this together now. When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "So here is the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson and edited by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. And I encourage you to pause this video and first try to read it on your own and see if you can identify these ideas of natural rights, limited government, popular sovereignty, republicanism, and social contract. Okay, let's read this together now. When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another. Remember, this is a Declaration of Independence. They are dissolving the political bonds with the Kingdom of Great Britain. And to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another. Remember, this is a Declaration of Independence. They are dissolving the political bonds with the Kingdom of Great Britain. And to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them. So that's starting to refer a little bit to natural rights. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. So they're saying, hey, we're writing this document because we're trying to show the rest of mankind why the reasons for which we are deciding to declare our independence from Great Britain."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "And to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them. So that's starting to refer a little bit to natural rights. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. So they're saying, hey, we're writing this document because we're trying to show the rest of mankind why the reasons for which we are deciding to declare our independence from Great Britain. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Let me underline this. That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "So they're saying, hey, we're writing this document because we're trying to show the rest of mankind why the reasons for which we are deciding to declare our independence from Great Britain. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Let me underline this. That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So this is a direct reference to natural rights. In fact, the phrase life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, most historians believe is in direct reference to John Locke's phrase life, liberty, and property when he talks about natural rights. So this is direct reference to the Enlightenment ideas or even the pre-Enlightenment ideas of natural rights."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So this is a direct reference to natural rights. In fact, the phrase life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, most historians believe is in direct reference to John Locke's phrase life, liberty, and property when he talks about natural rights. So this is direct reference to the Enlightenment ideas or even the pre-Enlightenment ideas of natural rights. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. All right, this is worth underlining as well because they're talking about governments being instituted among men to secure these rights. This is all about social contract."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "So this is direct reference to the Enlightenment ideas or even the pre-Enlightenment ideas of natural rights. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. All right, this is worth underlining as well because they're talking about governments being instituted among men to secure these rights. This is all about social contract. So that's social contract. That we form a government in order to secure rights. We might give it some rights, but in exchange, the government has to protect our rights."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "This is all about social contract. So that's social contract. That we form a government in order to secure rights. We might give it some rights, but in exchange, the government has to protect our rights. And they derive their powers from the consent of the governed. So let me write that. Let me underline that actually in a different color."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "We might give it some rights, but in exchange, the government has to protect our rights. And they derive their powers from the consent of the governed. So let me write that. Let me underline that actually in a different color. Derive their powers from the consent of the governed. That is popular sovereignty. Popular, I'll just write it as pop-sov."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "Let me underline that actually in a different color. Derive their powers from the consent of the governed. That is popular sovereignty. Popular, I'll just write it as pop-sov. Popular sovereignty right over here. That the people are the sovereigns. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "Popular, I'll just write it as pop-sov. Popular sovereignty right over here. That the people are the sovereigns. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. So this is more about social contract. They're like, look, if a government breaks its social contract, we have a right to replace it. And the document also makes reference to organizing its powers in such form."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. So this is more about social contract. They're like, look, if a government breaks its social contract, we have a right to replace it. And the document also makes reference to organizing its powers in such form. So that's really talking about limited government. They're talking about, hey, this government just won't have the absolute right to do anything. So that right over there is limited government."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "And the document also makes reference to organizing its powers in such form. So that's really talking about limited government. They're talking about, hey, this government just won't have the absolute right to do anything. So that right over there is limited government. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. They're essentially saying, look, you shouldn't just overthrow your government on a whim. And accordingly, all experience have shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "So that right over there is limited government. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. They're essentially saying, look, you shouldn't just overthrow your government on a whim. And accordingly, all experience have shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. So they're saying, look, if you're prudent, you wouldn't just overthrow your government on a whim. But they're kind of saying we're not so worried about that because history has shown us, experience has shown us that if anything, people are more likely to keep suffering even when they should be overthrowing their government. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "And accordingly, all experience have shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. So they're saying, look, if you're prudent, you wouldn't just overthrow your government on a whim. But they're kind of saying we're not so worried about that because history has shown us, experience has shown us that if anything, people are more likely to keep suffering even when they should be overthrowing their government. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism. It is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. So they're saying, hey, look, the kingdom of Great Britain, they are abusing us, they are usurping power. Usurping is taking something from you that is yours."}, {"video_title": "Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence.mp3", "Sentence": "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism. It is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. So they're saying, hey, look, the kingdom of Great Britain, they are abusing us, they are usurping power. Usurping is taking something from you that is yours. And so we need to throw off such a government for our own future security. And here it says provide new guards for their future security. So this provide new guards, once again making reference to limited government."}, {"video_title": "Iron triangles and issue networks   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "So an iron triangle describes how various parties might influence each other and what they might do for each other. So let's say that there is a group that is very interested in building more roads, maybe there's a group that represents all the road contractors in the United States and they would love more highways to be built because there'd be more business for them. And so then that interest group who wants more highways to be built, they might say, hey, Congress people, we want more highways built. And the way that they try to get favor with Congress is through electoral support. Now what kind of electoral support could they give? Well, they could donate money to the congressman directly, they could donate money to political parties, they could try to activate the electorate to vote for a congressperson who favors their agenda more than someone else. In exchange, Congress people could do a few things."}, {"video_title": "Iron triangles and issue networks   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And the way that they try to get favor with Congress is through electoral support. Now what kind of electoral support could they give? Well, they could donate money to the congressman directly, they could donate money to political parties, they could try to activate the electorate to vote for a congressperson who favors their agenda more than someone else. In exchange, Congress people could do a few things. They could provide more funding to the bureaucracy that is going to build roads, and we just talked about that bureaucracy in the executive branch. And that bureaucracy, not only might they build more roads, but if they like those interest groups, they might lower the regulations on them. Maybe they might give them more contracts as they build those roads."}, {"video_title": "Iron triangles and issue networks   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "In exchange, Congress people could do a few things. They could provide more funding to the bureaucracy that is going to build roads, and we just talked about that bureaucracy in the executive branch. And that bureaucracy, not only might they build more roads, but if they like those interest groups, they might lower the regulations on them. Maybe they might give them more contracts as they build those roads. Another thing that Congress could do for the interest group is pass friendly legislation. So maybe pass a law that makes it easier to build roads in a certain part of the country or in a certain way. But the reason why it's called an iron triangle, it's not just about what do interest groups want, it's also what does Congress want, what does the bureaucracy want, and what do they get from the other two parties?"}, {"video_title": "Iron triangles and issue networks   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Maybe they might give them more contracts as they build those roads. Another thing that Congress could do for the interest group is pass friendly legislation. So maybe pass a law that makes it easier to build roads in a certain part of the country or in a certain way. But the reason why it's called an iron triangle, it's not just about what do interest groups want, it's also what does Congress want, what does the bureaucracy want, and what do they get from the other two parties? So we already talked about how Congress can get electoral support from interest groups, but what can it get from a bureaucracy? Congress passes laws and a budget, but a bureaucracy for the most part decides how to execute on that. And so if they are aligned with Congress, they might execute on those laws with a little bit more energy."}, {"video_title": "Iron triangles and issue networks   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "But the reason why it's called an iron triangle, it's not just about what do interest groups want, it's also what does Congress want, what does the bureaucracy want, and what do they get from the other two parties? So we already talked about how Congress can get electoral support from interest groups, but what can it get from a bureaucracy? Congress passes laws and a budget, but a bureaucracy for the most part decides how to execute on that. And so if they are aligned with Congress, they might execute on those laws with a little bit more energy. If the bureaucracy for one reason or another is not as gung-ho about those laws, they might drag their feet a little bit. And from the bureaucracy point of view, well, we already talked how they could get funding and political support from Congress. You see that on that part of the triangle there."}, {"video_title": "Iron triangles and issue networks   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "And so if they are aligned with Congress, they might execute on those laws with a little bit more energy. If the bureaucracy for one reason or another is not as gung-ho about those laws, they might drag their feet a little bit. And from the bureaucracy point of view, well, we already talked how they could get funding and political support from Congress. You see that on that part of the triangle there. What do they get from the interest groups? Well, we already talked about the congressional support, which they can do by supporting Congress people who might support favorable policies for the bureaucracy. The interest groups might be able to directly lobby Congress, which means, hey, we're gonna meet with Congress."}, {"video_title": "Iron triangles and issue networks   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "You see that on that part of the triangle there. What do they get from the interest groups? Well, we already talked about the congressional support, which they can do by supporting Congress people who might support favorable policies for the bureaucracy. The interest groups might be able to directly lobby Congress, which means, hey, we're gonna meet with Congress. We might even draft some things, some things for the policy agenda. Now, a related idea to an iron triangle and interest groups that you might also hear in an American government course is the notion of issue networks. One way to think about issue networks is they are essentially more informal than interest groups."}, {"video_title": "Iron triangles and issue networks   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "The interest groups might be able to directly lobby Congress, which means, hey, we're gonna meet with Congress. We might even draft some things, some things for the policy agenda. Now, a related idea to an iron triangle and interest groups that you might also hear in an American government course is the notion of issue networks. One way to think about issue networks is they are essentially more informal than interest groups. Interest groups can be part of an issue network, but an issue network can be, let's say you and I start to get really activated about something we get on TV, and then we start mailing our Congress people, and we start blogging about it, and we start getting a following, and then that starts to influence an interest group or interest group joins with us, and then we start to send messages to Congress. We start to provide more scrutiny on the bureaucracy. Then we would be an issue network."}, {"video_title": "Iron triangles and issue networks   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "One way to think about issue networks is they are essentially more informal than interest groups. Interest groups can be part of an issue network, but an issue network can be, let's say you and I start to get really activated about something we get on TV, and then we start mailing our Congress people, and we start blogging about it, and we start getting a following, and then that starts to influence an interest group or interest group joins with us, and then we start to send messages to Congress. We start to provide more scrutiny on the bureaucracy. Then we would be an issue network. And as I mentioned, issue networks might not be formal. They might not be a formal, let's say, lobbying group or interest group, but they can also have influence in the same way that an interest group does."}, {"video_title": "Iron triangles and issue networks   US government and civics   Khan Academy.mp3", "Sentence": "Then we would be an issue network. And as I mentioned, issue networks might not be formal. They might not be a formal, let's say, lobbying group or interest group, but they can also have influence in the same way that an interest group does."}]