Sentence
stringlengths 118
2.7k
| video_title
stringlengths 38
107
|
|---|---|
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. | The First Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The First Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The First Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The First Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The First Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The First Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The First Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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? | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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? | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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? | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | What was the Articles of Confederation US Government and Civics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Constitutional powers of the president American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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? | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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? | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Fifth Amendment - takings clause US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
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. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |