Sentence
stringlengths 118
2.7k
| video_title
stringlengths 38
107
|
|---|---|
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. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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? | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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? | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Marbury v. Madison US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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? | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Electoral college American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
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. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |