100 Comments

  • Psychosmurf547

    @shanedk Oh O.K. I see now. It is only the representative that has to consent since the people are not subject to the constitution anyway.

  • Shane Killian

    @funisverygood Rights do not need to have legitimacy. The force that would act against them does. And if that force is not legitimate, it should not be allowed.

  • Shane Killian

    @funisverygood Invalid question. By asking "who decides," you assume that it has to be decided by SOMEONE. That's an invalid assumption. No one has to decide what rights people have. Someone DOES have to decide to use force to take those rights away, and that someone MUST justify what he is doing.

    Your fascistic proposal would shift the burden of proof on the person asserting his rights. That's tyranny, and it's evil.

  • Shane Killian

    @funisverygood The ONLY legitimate use of force is in the defense against or prevention of other force.

    Your 1) is just a pathetic excuse for tyranny.

  • Shane Killian

    @funisverygood Having a right to a free press does NOT give you the right to take money from others to pay for your means of printing and distribution, only that the government cannot interfere in your running a press.

    Having a right to health care, therefore, does NOT give you the right to take money from others to pay for your procedures, only that the government cannot interfere with your ability to make health care decisions–but you want the government to do EXACTLY that.

  • Virgil0211

    @funisverygood I thought you looked familiar. Did you ever buy that basic econ textbook, or are you still spouting nonsense?

    Considering that you're getting trounced in the comments here, I'll bet it's the latter.

  • Shane Killian

    @evensgrey No, fraud is just misleading people. The intent covers the actions that lead to the people being misled, not to anyone's personal beliefs. In fact, a lot of con men buy their own cons and begin to believe they really can do the things they pretend to do. That doesn't make it any less a fraud.

  • Shane Killian

    @evensgrey Completely wrong. Just look at all the dowsers and palm readers. James Randi himself can verify that most of them honestly believe they can do these supernatural things.

  • Shane Killian

    @evensgrey But if someone prosecutes them for fraud, and it's shown in court that they can't possibly be doing what they claim to be doing, they'll be found guilty and it won't matter how much they SAY they believe it.

  • Shane Killian

    @vspqbd Exactly. Intent in the legal sense of the word has to do with action–the action which led to the result was deliberate, as opposed to accidental, which would be negligence.

  • Mike Takac

    The Living-constitution preamble: We the Oligarchy of the US, in Order to form a more perfect central government, establish only criminal Justice, insure controlling Tranquility, provide for the common redistribution, promote social Welfare, and secure Liberty to the Oligarchy and their Posterity, do establish this erratic unpublished constitution for the US.

    As for the people, they are on the road to serfdom.

  • justaman6972

    23 people live in comunist china, or north korea, or in a place where the thumbs down really means they liked the vid,or they are just really confused and have never lived in a nation where speaking contrary to the state results in execution,or life in prison.

  • Licmycat

    Strangely the Constitution can be a paradox like life is. Especially when foreign nations are using our own Constitution against us and take away our rights. Usually using 'Free-Trade' as an excuse to justify communising our nation.

  • Mike Takac

    @Licmycat US Constitution is to protect Rights. When viewing our unalienable Rights from the vantage point of science, it becomes clear they apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems (see my channel video). The Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live.

  • Licmycat

    @Mike10four Yeah. Isn't it horrible that too many lawmakers these days make up excuses for their perception of the Constitution to take AWAY our rights? In fact, it seemed sort'of glaring that an invasion of foreigners attempts to take us over using our Constitution against us. I'm wondering if they blame me as i used to leave copies of parts of the Constitution out in public….:( And I've had probs with issues attached ever since.

  • Shane Killian

    @ZakMckracken1 And the free states wanted them to not count at all, for the same reason. That's why it's called the "3/5ths compromise."

  • Floren LeBaron

    First we have not been under "the Constitution" since the time of the civil war and what we have now does not even vaguely resemble such. Second, silence is consent as a moral and political principle. If the people do not object they have given tacit consent. Third Lysanders position is good, close, but a bit extreme and not accurate history. I agree with most. Tyranny is simply wrong. The majority have voted and that is more then tacit consent, it is participation. Enjoy the vid's thanks.

  • Shane Killian

    @DrinkingClassPhlsphr Yes: the Supreme Court abrogated the Constitution by using the Commerce Clause outside of its meaning, allowing the Federal government to assume powers the Constitution doesn't give it.

  • Gavin Campbell

    @shanedk- I know that was kind of my point. It is funny that you bring up abrogating the Constitution when referring to judicial review of the SC. I would be interested to find where in the Constitution, it states the SC has the authority to validate, or invalidate, laws. Article III only covers the make up of the court and parties allowed to have their cases heard.

    **I think that the application of JR by the SC is a positive thing, and think it should be added as an Amend to the Constituion.

  • Shane Killian

    @DrinkingClassPhlsphr Article III does give the Supreme Court jurisdiction in all controversies under the Constitution, so they do get to decide cases like that. But they do NOT get to make up their own interpretation of the Constitution and employ it at their whim, yet, they do so all the time.

  • Gavin Campbell

    @shanedk Agreed, but my argument is that, by the design, JR applies to each case on an INDIVIDUAL basis and does not AUTOMATICALLY negate any law of the same ilk, as the "informed" (judges, academics, media, politicians, etc) like to claim. Now logic would state that precedent will overturn it, but my contention is with the de facto automatic overturning being portrayed as de jure.

  • Shane Killian

    @DrinkingClassPhlsphr I think it's clear that this doesn't really happen. Look, for example, at how many gun laws continue to get passed no matter how much the Supreme Court says they violate the Second Amendment.

  • Gavin Campbell

    @shanedk- First off the 2nd Amend tends to be an exception, to just about all topics. Now dont mistake my "de facto" comment to refer to future laws. Due to the use of precedents in our judicial system, it doesnt make sense to pass a law that will, inevitablly, be overturned. The comment was intended to refer to the overturning of laws existing at the time of the decision (i.e. Buckley v. Valeo did not, in and of itself, overturn existing contribution laws).

  • Shane Killian

    @DrinkingClassPhlsphr No, but if prosecutors know that a judge is going to throw out a case because the Supreme Court called a similar case unconstitutional, the prosecutor won't try. That's the power of precedent.

  • Gavin Campbell

    @shanedk I understand that concept, and that is what my comment was about. A DA not pressing charges or politicians passing new laws to suspend/amend their version b/c of precedent would be de facto applications. The "if this, then that" ideology represented by the "informed" that law "X" is now null and void based on the sole premise of law "Y" being over turned is what I was referring to as the de jure.

  • ninjacatmagic

    I particularly like this lecture……I can't believe I once called you a "nobody"…..Good thing ignorance is not a character flaw….. 😉

  • Shane Killian

    @gmsherry1953 But they also have the responsibility to NOT use that power for anything other than the national defense or general welfare, and are restricted from using the power for many things under Section 9, the Bill of Rights, and other amendments.

  • Gregory Bogosian

    @funisverygood If rights are subjective, then how do I defend things like the right to free speech and the right to due process to individuals who do not already believe in them?

  • Gregory Bogosian

    @chainzdown2dadik What makes the concept's of justice and fairness more consistent with reality than the concept of rights?

  • Shane Killian

    @Sewblon The fact that it created the US government. Without the Constitution, you don't have a Federal government.

  • Gregory Bogosian

    @shanedk Sorry. I meant to reply to clownpenisfart. I was, with poor wording in hindsight, asking him what made him think that the constitution had the necessary authority to bequeath rights.

  • Jesse Austin

    @Sewblon With what I get from this video, no. The constitution doesn't require our consent because it only applies to the government. The constitution should only delineate what the government can/cannot do. If it inhibits our rights at all, or puts any limitation on the people, it is an "illegitimate" section and needs to be abolished, from what I understand. All it does is protect our rights, so all we must consent to are the people using the constitution and modern legislation.

  • Gregory Bogosian

    Your thesis leaves a very important piece of the puzzle out. It starts with the 9nth amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If I am interpreting this correctly, then it means that the constitution not enumerating certain rights doesn't necessarily mean that we don't have those rights. Given that, how do "we the people" know what rights we do and don't have?

  • Gregory Bogosian

    What exactly gave the states the power and legitimacy to do all that? I know each state has its own constitution, but from whence do those documents derive their legitimacy or lack thereof?

  • Owen Reynolds

    This video is a very limited scope. The US Constitution creates a government which can be altered by the people–articles V and VII define two legal ways (as opposed to warfare). The power of the government is defined by votes. If less than 50% don't vote to change the government to a confederate, autocratic, etc., then it receives implied popular consent. Furthermore a government protects its people–from invasion, sickness, ignorance, and poverty. You have to pay to live in a society.

  • Shane Killian

    WRONG. Article VII is ONLY about the initial ratification, specifying that the Constitution goes into effect once it's been ratified by 9 states. It has NOTHING to do with how the Constitution can be altered. Article V is the ONLY one, and there's ONLY ONE WAY TO DO IT.

    "If less than 50% don't vote to change the government to a confederate, autocratic, etc., then it receives implied popular consent."

    Sorry, doesn't work that way.

  • Shane Killian

    "Furthermore a government protects its people–from invasion, sickness, ignorance, and poverty. You have to pay to live in a society."

    Thank you for showing how deluded you are. Government is the CAUSE of invasion, sickness, ignorance, and poverty. Leave the people to themselves and no one gets invaded, cures and treatments for sickness are easily available, the people are well-educated, and they lift themselves out of poverty. As history has shown time and time again.

  • Ganga Din

    LOL! Can you see the parallel to God?

    But, Shane you should be careful. The "no one gets invaded" is over the top. After all, even without the state there will be invasions of bodies, privacy, properties etc. Its just that the invading bodies will be properly seen for what they are… i.e. criminals.

  • Ganga Din

    Who commits home invasions? Rape is invasion of a person's sexual anatomy. Assault is invasion of a person's body. Tresspass is the invasion of someone's property. Theft involves invasion of someone's property (may not be the actual victim's property.. also assumes no telekinesis)

  • Shane Killian

    "Who commits home invasions?"

    Semantic trickery. Do you REALLY think Owen had "home invasions" in mind when he said that government protects people "from invasions"?

  • Ganga Din

    No, but he/she probably meant something else.. but lets not get carried away with it. And yes, govt doesn't actually protect you against invasions, even the kind that he is thinking about. My point is do not be careless with language and wander into an absurd absolute.

  • Ganga Din

    LOL! I know govt is not actually a protector, and I know about the private solutions and yes, they would work far better than the state. My caution was meant only to lasso Shane back from an shaky absolute.

  • Owen Reynolds

    I gave more weight to article VII than it deserves, though without ratification there would have been no consent–but it's outside our scope here.

    However (and your personal attacks aside), nowhere in the world has anarchy or lack of any government stopped invasions, sickness, or ignorance. Government is a natural organization to the drive for self-preservation and prosperity. Every group EVER is "governed" by somebody by force, by vote, or by abstained vote (which implies apathy and consent).

  • Owen Reynolds

    Wow. I was trying to have a debate with you, but unfortunately you're just an angry little man. Way to take the high road little man. Later.

  • johnrainrules

    "nowhere in the world has anarchy or lack of any government stopped invasions, sickness, or ignorance. "

    You can substitute the word anarchy with monarchy, democracy, socialist government, and fascist dictatorship and that statement will be just as true.

    "Every group EVER is "governed" by somebody by force,"

    And it used to be true everybody had slaves or were slaves. So what.

  • johnrainrules

    "or by abstained vote (which implies apathy and consent)."

    If you apply this standard to your personal life I suspect you may be on trial for sexual assault at some point in the near future.

  • Hugo

    When you said the constitution does not affect us in any way.
    But it does, because it gives the congress the power to steal from us through a method called taxation.

  • Shane Killian

    Well, that wasn't the original idea. Direct taxes were unconstitutional originally. The 16th Amendment is an abomination that changed that.

  • Hugo

    But they still had a clause that allowed congress "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises", isn't that taxation? And if you do not mind, could you explain what are the differences between these types of taxes, because I tried to look them up on the internet and they do not appear anywhere or if they appear is in super complicated language that I'm not able to understand. I would be very grateful if you made a video on that.

  • Shane Killian

    "But they still had a clause that allowed congress "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises", isn't that taxation?"

    That power, in Article I Section 8, was limited by Article I Section 9 in that they couldn't issue a capitation or other form of direct tax. It was the state governments that were supposed to pay taxes to the Feds, NOT the people directly.

  • Scotty Rose

    I really like your videos, and you make really great points; that I mostly agree with.
    But here I must disagree, vehemently. To be a part of society, there is a price. Like having to let a police officer search your home, even if you are completely innocent, if they have a valid search warrant.
    And, as far as your comment, "Leave the people to themselves and no one gets invaded, cures and treatments for sickness are easily available,

  • Scotty Rose

    the people are well-educated, and they lift themselves out of poverty." Might I suggest the secluded native tribes in South America, who have no governing bodies. They are constantly dying, either of sickness or other tribes invading them and taking their women and children for themselves. They have no concept of learning, other than oral tradition; and a complete lack of any writing system. Their doctors are shamans and witchdoctors. With all that, your last statements make little to no sense.

  • Scotty Rose

    creationist make, assuming Owen is a creationist; which, from his statements in total, I don't think you can rationally justify that assertion. Besides, you don't attack people in a debate or argument; you attack their ideas.
    I don't think I can watch any more of your videos now, which is a shame; because I really enjoyed your intelligence and wit. But after the way you acted here, I would feel bad, morally, if I watch any more.
    FYI, I'm an atheist to.

  • Scotty Rose

    Not if you think about it. Let me use and allegory.
    (Keep in mind, the woman in question is sober, of a right mind, and can speak)
    I walk into a night club, and see a woman I find very attractive. Quickly, I walk over, and kiss her. She gives no reaction. I pick her up, and she says nothing. I put her in my car, and not so much as a grunt. I drive to my house, and carry her to my room, and still noting. I have sex with her, and not once does she speak.
    The next morning, she calls the cops, and

  • Scotty Rose

    tells them I raped her.
    Question is, did I?
    Every time I did anything, I waited for a negative response to let me know to stop. No such response came. If I were having sex with here (not under duress) and she does not object it means one of two things. 1 She is silently agreeing that she also wishes to do…whatever. Or, 2 She does not care about what I am doing to her enough to ask me/tell me to stop. Therefor, should I be charged with rape? Well, should I?

  • Shane Killian

    "Instead of calmly laying out what he said about article 7 was false"

    I had done that previously. He kept lying about it.

    "Does it really matter that he FUCKING lied about what it said?"

    Yes, it REALLY DOES FUCKING MATTER WHEN PEOPLE LIE!!! Just like it matters when they steal your money or punch you in the face.

  • Shane Killian

    "creationist make, assuming Owen is a creationist;"

    I didn't SAY he was a creationist; I said he's resorting to the same TACTICS as creationists. It is perfectly 100% valid to attack fallacious methods of argumentation.

  • johnrainrules

    "Every time I did anything, I waited for a negative response to let me know to stop."

    Men who aren't sociopaths would have noticed that she was completely unresponsive long before they got to the throwing the woman in the car stage and would have sought medical attention.

    Thanks for proving my point that statists think like rapists.

  • Wisco Kidd

    So it is legal for cops to take you up the butt hole and then say you resisted arrest haulin' you to jail, but is in constitutional?  According to judges in several states and the 9th circuit it is. I found out the hard way.  

  • mmarieden

    I never gave consent to someone changing the contents of posts in my browser's HTML, and I complain about it often, but there are freaks out there who do it anyway, and justify it in their own retarded minds. So even though I never agreed to the Constitution, I at least agree with most of it, particularly the individual rights. This is a very nice series of information on the Constitution, and I will no doubt learn from it, at least learn your perspective of it, and take it into consideration.

  • Chloé V

    Thank you very much for these videos, I'm a French student and I'm currently studying the Constitution and its amendments, so this has been very useful and helpful for me !

  • d00m92

    And what would be a solution to the consent problem? To change the constitution every election cycle? No, since not everyone will agree on what it will contain. An agreement between everybody will never take place. And it shouldn't be changed radically anyway since it risks allienating rights. Sure, you did not agree with the constitution, but you already benefit from it. 
    Furthermore, if laws would apply only to those who consent to them, what would happen to those who can't give consent (infantile, senile, metally challenged)? 

  • mrcdplay

    I don't like arguments 2 and 3 against tacit consent. Sure, it can be costly to leave, but that has nothing to do with force being applied. I disagree with tacit consent because the other people in a country do not have a higher claim on your person or property than you do. What if you were arguing with a socialist that employment is voluntary, and you told him that an employee could quit and go work for someone else, and he responded by arguing that it could be costly? Even if that is true, it doesn't make employment any less voluntary.

  • 567heyho

    hm, well, if this is the case, then how does government enact any regulations? I don't quite follow the line of reasoning here in this video.

  • Carolyn Flynn

    Good grief. I can't even watch the whole thing. The US Constitution is a Compact among the STATES. It expresses the LIMITS of the fedgov, and the LAWS that Congress passes are required to be IN PURSUANCE of those limited powers of fedgov. About 80% of what fedgov is currently doing is illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional. Your entire argument has nothing to do with the Constitution as it was intended but as it has been perverted. If we were to return to a Constitutional fedgov we would find that it was created to PROTECT our liberties. It is when it exceeds its powers that we need to withdraw our "consent." And I would suggest that we are at that point. FEDGOV has not obeyed the limits placed upon it and therefore has violated the compact. We the People need to shove it back into the box and shut the lid. WE need to restore fedgov to its Constitutional limits.

  • David Hoffman

    In what way did the constitution permit slavery? The constitution didn't ban slavery, but then it didn't ban murder either. Are you referring to the 3/5ths compromise?

  • Ann Gersich

    If the parts of the constitution that restricted the people and violated their rights were illegitimate then why were they placed into the constitution by the framers of it?

  • Toq The Wise

    This doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if I give consent to be governed but the government needs my consent to be legitimate. Okay, so I grow weed in my backyard and when men in uniforms come to my house, I can say "I do not consent!" and they can't arrest me?

  • The Utopiano Utopioan

    There's no such thing as tacit consent! It's just a way for statists to attempt to justify all Government coercion. Many sheeple these days subscribe to Thomas Hobbes' version of the mythical Social contract in which we supposedly consent to the system and thus the government can do no wrong. One of the favorite excuses of the state is we use the government provided goods and services like roads, bridges, Government " protection " from private criminals, etc. We have little choice BUT to use the goods and services that the state provides as it either has a monopoly on those goods and services and we're forced to pay for them OR in cases where both government and private options are available, we are forced to pay for the government option wether we use it or not! And the notion of consenting to the government just by being on a given piece of land is hogwash!

  • Charley Dan

    Who is the people? Or who has right to constution?. Coming to America, one gains it by immigration process. Other wise your an illegal, proud. Slaves were forced here and bought. Immigration solves this and the thirteenth only made them slaves to government instead of individuals. An amendment never ratified or challenged to the Supreme Court. Many judges feel it would fail if challenged.

  • ny1t

    I have been through the Hillsdales courses on the Constitution and other subjects. Arrn repeatedly said we can't be governed without our consent. But how, was not made clear. I wanted to understand how we do not consent. Your explanation clarified it perfectly for me. The next problem is how to get people to stop violating us.
    Thanks.

Leave a Reply

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