How Should the Constitution Be Interpreted? | Who Decides Its Meaning?

Before I graduated from 8th grade, I was 14 and it was 1968.. I had to memorize the Preamble.. I still know it by heart and still say it to grand kids, my kids an myself. I think it was the best thing to have children at that age memorize such a document, to be able to go on to High school.

A wise man once remarked: "Don't tell me what it means, tell me what it says."

A great recap would be a chart of where the checks and balances were weakly/strongly enacted by year, over the past 250 years… and why. Executive, legislative, judicial. Also point out voter turnout per election (the people as the 4th check). Identify constitutional changes/amendments. Lastly a heat map of originality vs modernist view of the Constitution. Also indicate relative strength of each branch (per year) via laws passed, impact/efficacy/intent.. some version of an Eisenhower matrix. Speak to this matrix/chart as the basis of the lecture.

I really wish this had been available when I was in school.

Any power not covered in the constitution is given to the states or the people. John Roberts was 100% correct. That is also why the founders made the document amenable but also not easily done on a whim. We the people are the ultimate power, not the Federal government.

The Constitution is to say what the government should be to prevent tyranny. Even the Bill of Rights doesn't limit private life.

10th amendment addresses this, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. marriage at the time was a person thing not a state licensed thing. so that is a right of the people. the federal government was the first to recognise marriages back in 1913, and states added the requirement for a marriage license in 1929. but constitutionally speaking, it is a right of the people, not a permission of the state.

These are such great lectures.

The US Bill of Rights and the Original Constitution are Legal Binding Contracts between the Govern and Our Government. The Declaration of Independence is a Social Contract, that lays out our Duty when the Contract is Violated. Inalienable Liberties defines its meaning. Its very simple, but it's corrupt individuals who make it Confusing or Complicated . . .

I very much appreciate the fact that it’s here now!

The constitution was written to not need any type of translation, or question of meaning. Since it was written though, the government (as the forefathers surmised would happen) began to act like children. The constitution says (for example in the second amendment) "...shall not be infringed". Then the government like children after their parents said "NO!" began to conspire a way to get what they wanted..."Well, did they really mean NOT?"..."Did they use our full names?"..."Maybe they were going to say UNLESS, but didn't know that word at the time...". So they used the Marbury v Madison case to begin pushing the legal system over the lawful system. The average simp has no comprehension of legalese, because it was made to confuse (as any word can mean anything) as it is nothing more than poetry (as is proven via 1 U.S. Code § 1). They knew that until they moved away from common law, they would not have any power and would not make any money. First and foremost the constitution is a contract for the people (the benefactors), telling the government (servants) their place, and how to not overstep their limits. This silliness of the constitution needing to be translated is nothing more than children run amok.

In my high school in Ames Iowa we were taught some of this. But I have a hearing impairment so I didn't pay much attention this is good Channel

Easy question, which Thomas Jefferson answered long ago: “On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Wow! Yes, this is a must topic for all Americans 🤗🤗

And the beat goes on. The game is to put supreme court judges on the bench that will rule in favor of certain issues..... So in reality that's where rights and wrongs are confirmed. And the beat goes on...

This is the content ALL Americans need before or during High school.

thanks for the lesson.

Thanks for this! 💕

So if the constitution creates 3 branches of equal power, then why would it be ok for 1 of those branches to act the scope of another branch? In other words, why would it be acceptable for the Judicial branch to act in the scope of the Legislative branch? Will it be ok if the Executive decide and create what is constitutional? Either we have a separation of powers or we don't.

3/5ths Compromise was actually a direct action by abolitionists to eliminate slavery. If they said "Don't count slaves at all", then the slave holding states would never sign on to ratifying the Constitution, which ultimately created the frame work to abolish slavery. If they counted the full population of slaves, then the slave holding states would have overwhelming power in the federal government and the abolition of slavery would have taken much longer, if at all.