I agree how did Corporations ever have rights over us American's?! That's wrong a Corporation is an entity, a business, group of wealthy ppl running a large business Corporations are not individuals! That is pure Facism like Putin & his Russian Oligarch's giving the few Rich the power over the people beneath them us American's out here striving to survive & destroying a Woman's Right's! Woman should not be forced back into cost hangar Abortions & if your a Christian then you should understand that's between God & a woman! What are these Men & so called Christian Coalition going to try us women as witches, just like during The Spanish Inquisition over Women having the right to a safe clesn sterile abortion?! Per The Bible Life begins at Birth!
Since a corporation is now a person, doesn't this mean that a person is a corporation? If so, then when it comes to paying taxes a person should be able to deduct the cost of housing, utilities, transportation and food as necessary expenses for their "corporation."
I'm not an American but I have compassion for America now as this minority of whack-jobs are sending such a great society straight into a toilet of ignorance; God help us all.
Thank you for your compassion. As a senior disabled female on Social Security, I'm more afraid than I've ever been in my entire life. If things go the way they look like they're going to, "they" could take my only source of income (social security) which would cause the loss of my home. My husband and I could be on the street with no way to even feed ourselves...all within the next couple of years and all we can do about it is vote on machines that have probably been tampered with. Even if they haven't been tampered with, we can no longer trust the people counting, sorting and tabulating our votes. There are those who've made it quite clear that they have no qualms about changing ballots that don't say what they want them to say. All we can do is hope.
James Madison also put a paragraph in the bill of rights that said, paraphrased, “just a cause it ain’t listed here doesn’t mean other rights and freedoms don’t exist”.
@David Williamson I've been saying for years that both houses of Congress need time clocks, and each Congressperson and Senator needs to punch in and out...and those punches should be public record. That would let us know which of our representatives were showing up!
How dare they???what would happen if we didn’t show up to work? Or just worked when it was convenient? Guess what? No pay, no benefits, if you have them…..country falls apart? I love you Al Frankenstein!
But was it during an actual Senate session? Or was it one of those times when the Senate is not technically in session but they have a few Senators on the floor? (There are reasons for that I don't feel like going into right now.)
Especially because he got hounded out for a bad joke. We have senators on the right who have paid to have children shipped across state lines to have sex with and try to carry loaded guns on airplanes retaining their seats. One bad joke on the left is political suicde.
It will never happen. He got cancelled for making a silly hand gesture that looked like he wanted to grope a woman wearing body armor….no irony there…???? Then he took responsibility unlike a certain p-y grabbing president who said his words were “locker room talk” as if that is acceptable…????
Love this man. Smart and still has a sense of humor. The Senate lost a great guy because of one stupid mistake. Think of all the idiots he could replace.
The senate didn't lose Franken because of a "mistake"... They got rid of him, because of "appearances".... the radical left was on a "me too" rampage that was intended to target the gop dinosaurs, and the optics were bad because of the pictures that surfaced of Franken having fun with this stupid woman who just wanted media attention.... She knew god damned well that she went to a military base to provide entertainment as a "sexual play thing".... She spent the whole time half naked, jumping out of party cakes, and she had no objection at the time when Franken playfully pretended to grab her breasts, as depicted in the pictures. Franken was an entertainer as well, and it was all done in jest. Franken bowed out so as not to be a distraction to the party's overall agenda... No doubt Franken made mistakes in his life, but the party didn't turn away from him because of a "mistake"!!!!! They stabbed him in the back, because they were afraid that the gop would use the pics to claim hypocrisy!!!!
Am I the only one who thinks that members of government, especially those in leadership and representative roles, should be required to have a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the US Constitution?!?! Am I alone in thinking that an entire first world nation should not be run by absolute morons?!
Are you criticizing Biden? He is cleaning up the planet (well, many countries are still planning to use fossil fuels!); he is opening up the border so we taxpayers can pay our fair share in taxes. He is managing our military affairs so our young soldiers can die for their country! Don’t forget that he picks candidates for their color, which is racist but necessary for our great country to be divided. He doesn’t really believe in the sanctity of life, but as a Catholic he knows it’s more important to placate the masses. Please give him a break! Pick on Kamala. Even morons can make a contribution to this great country!
The right to abortion is there. The right to smoke pot is there. The founding fathers never considered that anyone would ever be stupid or authoritarian enough to tell people what they can't do with their own bodies.
@@redrick8900 I think you are absolutely correct; the topic is never addressed by Christ, either. Any entity, individual or institution (or religion) that believes in Freedom would never impose upon anyone the ultimate right to decide in this matter. Without freedom we are less than ourselves, and then nothing may be real.
@@eugwx9956 Yeah. I always found it weird that so many supposedly "Christian" people consider being anti abortion fundamental to their religious beliefs when the people who wrote their bloated holy book never bothered to mention it.
@Charles So, does this mean that I, or anyone else tall enough to get his nose over the counter, should be able to purchase a thousand Uzi submachine guns and a couple million rounds of ammunition? Personally, I believe, that if such weapons had been available at the time, the Second Amendment would read somewhat differently than it does. The point was not that only 'rights' need to have been mentioned in the 'original' text of the constitution, but that not everything that might need protection or regulation could have possibly been anticipated by the framers. The Framers did anticipate the idea that we might want to modify the document from time to time. In fact, the document underwent ten such amendments BEFORE it was even adopted. I personally believe that Justice Alito's argument is specious.
@Charles No. Muskets are "arms" as mentioned in the second amendment, and the right to have even them is only protected as long as a well regulated militia is necessary. Also, the supposed right to bare arms in no way prevents the government from restricting what arms people may own. A nuke is an arm. Do you think you have a constitutional right to carry one around with you? The right is clownshoes. All of your beliefs are stupid.
It most certainly did and the founding fathers addressed this too. They well knew that technology would increase. They talked about it at length. The chose to make sure the right to bear arms because they were aware any government could become corrupt and the people, not the government needed to hold the power. Of course, Biden threatened to nuke us. And as far as cell phones. You don't have a right to a cell phone.
@Charles - It is of great importance to the strict constructionists, however. The guns conceived of and available at the time of the Bill of Rights were all muzzle loaders. No doubt the stricties will want to weed out all other guns since then.
The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since ratification, a process itself mentioned which means the drafters knew and openly admitted it was intended to grow with the country not constrain it.
I don't think the constitution made reference to the right to a vasectomy, to prostate surgery, or to taking a little blue pill. Therefore these should be illegal.
The really scary part is that the arguments used against Roe vs Wade can be used against a long list of decisions like; the right to privacy, marriage, environmental laws, child labor laws are not in the "original" constitution.. every day I lose a bit more of my faith in humanity.
Those should be passed by the government as statute or amending the constitution. If we can't do that we've got bigger things to worry about than the supreme court. There is something fundamentally wrong with government. It means we've reached a new low when fundamental stuff like that can't be done without judges issuing a ruling. Powerful courts are dangerous. We saw in the past how often they overturned decent laws congress passed like anti discrimination laws in businesses. It set back the movement by 80 years or so. They will do that again and republicans will dominate the senate so it will be even worse. They just legalized direct bribing of politicians in the Ted Cruz case.
Brown v. Board of Education. Birth Control. In vitro. Same sex marriage. Interracial marriage. Healthcare. LGBTQ rights. Freedom of the Press. Let's face it, the entire Constitution is up for grabs. Except guns and anything white men want.
Al, I'm still convinced you were sabotaged. Your voice was, and still is more valuable than most people even realize. We need you back! Maybe Speaker of the House 🤔💙
Man, Al, his just makes your honorable decision to step away even more infuriariting. Not that you did the right thing, but that you did in front of corrupt idiots on both sides that don't have your ethics or strength. Boy we sure miss you... here's hopin you decide to give it another go.
Why aren't the inseminator's feet being held to the same fire as women? That a males role in a pregnancy isn't even part of the conversation, tells you everything you need to know about who's behind this.
And just when do Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito, write an opinion about the V word crime. Who is going to write the law that pays $10,000 to someone who identifies a male who contributes to a pregnancy and assures his support of the child through college.
Why? Because that's not necessary. Don't believe me? Wait until the Repuglicans take the House and Senate _(not to mention the Presidency in 2024)._ After that happened, they will first make women the property of their fathers/husbands again, and then they'll force r4ped women to marry their r4pist. Exactly like they handle it in countries under sharia law.
And you think jackson can address the matter of abortion rights, where she can't even say what a 'woman' is? And find the Ginsberg remarks on the subject, where never too late for enlightened people like you to cancel her.
@@thomasmargolis6057 I imagine you think you are endowed with an eternal soul at conception and will live forever in paradise while I will be tortured forever in hell. Your god is a monster and you are no better.
@@thomasmargolis6057 There is no legal definition of a "woman", only a "female". The Republicans asked a stupid question that no one learned in law could answer. If you'd bother to learn more about this yourself, you wouldn't keep repeating this stupid point as if it means anything.
@@thomasmargolis6057 You know damn well why Judge Jackson didn't answer the question. But the attempts of people with your thinking are nothing more than attempts to promote a false narrative that's dishonest.
Dang, Al Franken, now I can't be sure if the founding fathers actually had this conversation or not due to copious notes. Because, Ben Franklin did indeed write a paper about an effective herbal medication for inducing abortions.
@@hoppytoad79 In turn, I am inclined to believe that Al Franken has accurately quoted the contemporaneous notes taken by James Madison. @Marc Johnson comment re: Ben Franklin's "effective herbal medication" lends veracity to Senator Franklin's retelling.
Well one problem is Ben never wore a wig, at least at this time. He also said it was safe. Some of the " herbal" recipes weren't safe. If they were we would be still use them.
@@robertpearce4316 1. Ben is not shown with a wig in Franken's renderings. So, you have a point you're trying to make? 2. Oh yeah, something about Ben Franklin's herbal remedy... and that if worked then, that abortion would be acceptable now? Ergo, because BF's 1787 herbal remedy was flawed, it's perfectly legit that abortion is unconstitutional in 2022? I'm just wondering where you're going with this, Robert.
@@JBN137 yea my point was nothing to do with the constitution or Ben. It was about the flaw permiss of the jackess al was making. Al was making false statements. I'm for pro choice but I'm not going to listen to every jackess false narrative. I didn't even know Ben had a recipes for abortion, because he told younger men to have sex with older women for the fact they can't get pregnant. Ways of getting rid of a child goes back way before Ben, and none are used today. Why the didn't work or they were not safe. So your say artist chose not to put a wig on Ben. The wig was an elitist European deal. Which Washington fit. Not the northern founding fathers. It was a good sound bite for al.
Franken is witty and level-headed; he was one of the very few Congress members who honestly expressed remorse for one error in judgment he made. We all make mistakes in life; the important thing is to learn from them and move on. Franken has done both of these things beautifully.
Other members of Congress have been blatant in their lifestyle without consequences. Other politicians have preyed upon minors and violated the law and their oath of office.
Thank you Al for pointing out all of their hypocrisy on what the Constitution did or did not expressly state! I agree with your assessment that Alito leaked the draft, or one of his clerks!
They didn’t mention automatic weapons either but they thought human intelligence would continue to guide this republic. Little did they know the degeneration that would follow the industrial revolution.
Yes, and the implication is that being female obligates one to"supply infants " regardless of personal choice. That is the only justification for our existence.
“Domestic supply” when speaking of humans is especially gross. Also, banning abortion wont increase this “supply” of the lack-of-melatonin folks they prefer.
@@jeanniep1003 They'll eventually become cheap labor, or more inmates for the prison for profit pipeline, or cannon fodder for unending wars. Just like they are today.
Most of them only seem stupid if you think they have good intentions. They don't. They exploit the stupidity of others for their own gain. They're scammers.
The Constitution also doesn't say that if you're charged with a crime, you're innocent until proven guilty. The Supreme Court could rule it's the other way around if they felt like it.
@Charles Anyone that says any totalitarian measure is unlikely from the Republicans has their head in the sand. They already attempted a violent coup and worked with the Russians to steal elections.
Thanks, Mr Franken. ❤ From an Aussie in Ireland, looking aghast at the retardation of human rights in the USA by zealots elected by billionaire megadonors and the brainwashing of the fearful and ignorant by rightwing propaganda. (the Irish, constitution as written by the Irish Republicans in the 1916 uprising, was the first in history to include women in it's foundation and another hundred years to ensure obstetric choices for women in Ireland, along with Marriage Equality, but Separation of Church and State is an achievable human right)
What I haven't seen anybody point out is that Alito's new "test" for constitutionally supported rights having to have a long tradition in American history is - literally - the same as eliminating the entire possibility of progress. He's basically saying that rights can only exist if they've already been "grandfathered in" by having existed fifty or a hundred or more years ago. This literally makes progress an impossibility, since the recognition of any new rights is made impossible if this test is applied. (It also baldly ignores the ninth amendment to the constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)
I mentioned it. But you're right about the elimination of progress. This is not a new concept with the Supreme Court. They've done it before with rulings on qualified immunity, and also federal habeas corpus proceedings. And eliminating rights is not new either. The Fourth Amendment is barely clinging to life, and then only at your front door. Step outside your house and it's gone. And sometimes, you don't need to step outside for it to disappear.
No, he wants the courts to no make laws. Isn't that what so-called democracy is all about. So much hypocrisy, so little time. Democracy apparently only matters when you're stuffing the ballot box with dead votes.
I wondered the same. So we are frozen in time now with only wealthy, land holding white men having any guaranteed rights?forever more? Never changing? Always and forever? Eternity? Massa gonna smiiile bout that.
al franken is fighting hard to kill babies. interesting how people fight hard to kill the human life in the womb. the dems have used abortion to kill millions of black babies
Wrong. What this means is that the lefties and libs will have to stop relying on the SCOTUS to enshrine things in law (and there's one hell of a lot of them) that they can't get done legislatively. Oh, dear me.
Yep Al...not one of those right wing judges said they wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade. They just said it was settled precedent. How stupid do these senators think we are? We all knew this was coming, just didn't know when. My money's on Roberts as the leaker.
The Constitution makes no express reference to the right to eat meat. Therefore, it is now perfectly Constitutional to force everyone to become vegetarian! Yay!!!
You also have no right to eat vegetables and everyone can be forced to be a carnivore. All vegetables shall be forbidden. That's a can of worms you wouldn't want to open as there are far, far more meat eaters.
The constitution doesn't mention a lot of things, doesn't mean they're illegal, and Roe v Wade was declared constitutional in 1973 by a 7 to 2 vote, with 5 of the 7 voting to declare it constitutional being republican appointees.
@@chunck2001 No, of course it didn't make it right. No reasonable person of ethical/moral character would ever defend the practice of one human being owning another like a piece of property. Laws and court decisions make and/or uphold the legality of some human practice, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the practice is ethically or morally appropriate. History is full of examples of this.
@@robertwomack6109 You should read more! Slavery and its continuation, was the tease that made ratification of the Constitution possible. Slavery was given twenty years after the ratification to fester uncontested, and it was only after that period that the argument for or against was taken up. Dred Scott for example.
@@li2us Yes--and you completely missed the point. Just because a government or that government's constitution says something is okay, that doesn't mean it is. Just like a constitution saying something is wrong doesn't mean it is. Society is held together by a moral code that pre-dates and supersedes any particular legal. No society needs a piece of paper or a court ruling to know that people owning other people is wrong. Society also doesn't need a piece of paper or a court ruling to know it is wrong to kill an innocent life. Roe v.Wade was passed because of political pressure and no other reason.
SNL writers ALWAYS have my respect and should always run for office.. You have shown us that the truth is always in front of you. Thank you and I hope you run again
@@russellm2555 George Carlin wasn't that rich. He wasted allot of money during his life time similar to Johnny Depp, and Carlin didn't make anywhere near what Depp has made acting.
@@mcpappysgolden He posed for a photo that looked like he was groping the breasts of a sleeping female soldier. His hands were well above her chest, but perspective made it look like he was fondling her. Bad joke, but how does that hold up against a child sex trafficker and a senator trying to take a loaded gun onto an airplane?
The justices are saying the leak undermines the trust in the Supreme Court 😂😂😂😂 That ship sailed long time ago when they hired Justice Thomas, a sex abuser who should be homeless or in jail but he was rewarded with a power position for life
Benjamin Franklin published a reference book that provided detailed information on how to cause abortions by taking specific herbs. Abortion was generally practiced and approved of.
Any day with a short and sweet LIVE video from Al Franken is a good day. Your guess about leaker being Alito himself sounds credible. Loved your assessment of it all and your Susan Collins impression was uncanny plus your take on the constitutional convention was hilarious
@ batguurl 🎯👍 I TOTALLY AGREE !! AL's THEE BEST !! I Thought His Entire Video Was BRILLIANT ! Such a "Tragic Lose" When He Left The Senate ! He Would've Made The Difference 💯
The Constitution does not mention a number of rights, and abortion was legal until "quickening", or until the mother felt the baby move, which is generally right around viability--which Alito conveniently ignores. I've looked at the leaked opinion, and Alito (paraphrasing) says, "Even though abortion wasn't illegal prior to quickening, citizens knew the states had the power to make it illegal if they wanted to" as a justification/support/whatever you want to call it for the opinion. Yes, the states *could have* made abortion illegal prior to quickening, but they didn't, so YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.
Shake things up. Add four justices to SCOTUS. There's going to be 4 women on the court when Bryer steps down. Imagine 8 women's nurturing nature against 5 old boys! 😊🍿👍
republicans will dominate the senate. that won't end well. if dems can do it, republicans can do it more. u start that and you get maybe 2 years of riding high and then a near permanent republican senate with predictable results.
My God. I have lived in the South nearly all my life, and that is a scarily-accurate impression of a Southern Trump supporter. Also, I guess I have never seen Al without his glasses on before today.
Rule of thumb: the longer someone takes to answer a question, the less truthful it is. And when a trained lawyer adds Latin phrases, you just know the BS is being slung like a pro.
@@-dash Right. The legislature represents the public, and the public deserves a straight answer. The legal gobledy gook is for a court of law for judges to sort out.
I don't think this can be repeated enough! Abortion was unregulated, available and safe before the Constitution was written and for many decades afterwards.
And according to the Holy Catholic Church, abortion was allowed up until the "quickening", which referred to the fetal movements that could be detected at the time. The anti-abortion crowd does not base its claims on historical precedent. Just their feel-good sensibilities.
The Constitution's purpose was to define what the Federal Government could do, not what individuals could do. The Amendments address that if I'm not mistaken.
@@chasthanhburns123 Nice sophistry twist there, buddy. I suggest you reread the document. It specifically defines how the Federal Government shall be constructed and also defines what PERSONAL RIGHTS humans have that no State shall infringe. It leaves those duties and legislative options not assigned to the Federal Government to the States.
@@dridadbunkerphd6523 I don't necessarily think it's accurate to say that Tank Taylor was mistaken. However, with regard to the rights, particularly the first and second, they describe what the Federal Government can not do. It proscribes the FG from infringing on rights of the people rather than "giving" those rights to the people. But, I think you were also saying that pretty much.
@@dridadbunkerphd6523 I dont need to reread the document, bud. I was giving a flippant oppositional view to Tank Taylor for comedic value on the internet. Go find some gender bending male that wants to give birth to a baby and try to correct that ignorance.
@@chasthanhburns123 Transgender men have gotten pregnant. Your turn to do your homework and correct your own ignorance, Bud... BTW: Your attempt a humor failed - miserably. Don't give up your day job to become a comedian. Have a nice life.
Brilliant Al!!!; Thank you! I grew up with you on SNL, people often thought I was you, and now I have a deep appreciation of your political commentary, humour can transcend the insanity of this time. I would love it if you decide to return to the Senate. You left with grace and dignity. Thanks Al!!!
Whatever one’s views on Roe v Wade, how did anyone paying attention not see what the justices were going to try to do? I told people to watch how the first thing they’d do was rule against some minor issue from Trump so they could claim they were impartial and just following the law.
Abortion was not illegal, and was preformed when we were a new nation. It wasn't until the the Comstock Act that it became illegal. Also, an interesting point is that the evangelical right didn't care about abortion, until it helped them to get more members to their churches.
The airforce is likely unconstitutional. However, such a ruling would just lead to it being re-organized under another branch of the military. The political will to do that is there and bipartisan. The same cannot be said for culture war issues like abortion.
@@teleriferchnyfain Lots of ancient civilizations would abandon unwanted new born either in the wild or throw them in with garbage. I imagine we'll get more cases of babies being left in dumpsters in the next year.
I may have met you AL when you just started at SNL. I picked up /delivered many scripts to a certain office as a NYC bike messenger way back then. The office had a "secret name" that I know .Good to know the Sturgis motorcyclist is a fiction in Al's mind and another COVID -19 victim. Great acting. I actually bought it right to the end. Thank you Mr. Franken. Yes the constitution did not mention most of the world we live in let alone ladies. Gun control: Well regulated militias with single shot muskets. The constitution does not mention "The Bushmaster" the choice of many mad men in mass shootings in the good ol' USA.
The 2d Amendment MUST be read (and understood) IN CONJUNCTION with Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 which clearly define (and limit) the purposes for which ``the Militia`` may be ``called forth to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions`` as was done with Shays Rebellion (1786-87) and the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-94). In the late 1800s the Militia was remade into what we now know as the National Guard. The 2d Amendment was drafted in 1789, the same year the original Constitution (including Article I) was fully ratified. The 2d Amendment was drafted essentially by the same (male) Founders who only two years before had drafted Article I so, clearly, the use of the word ``Militia`` in the 2d Amendment was INTENDED to have the SAME meaning it had in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16!!
@@cogitoxyz9645 - The whole Bill of Rights was an attempt by Congress to reign in the outrages that were forced upon citizens by the British during the Revolution. When the British did these things, it was not expressly illegal to usurp one's private dwelling in order to house hostile troops, to shut down printing presses, to force one religion on a People (ie: the Church of England), to disband militias that were trying to defend their regions, etc. Strict constructionists must be aware of this, but turn their heads.
First, this is right on. Second, I love Al Franken. His Senate career is a prime example of the Democrats cutting their own throats. My wife and I have never understood how his actions deserved punishing him or our country like this. I wish we could have him back in the Senate.
The Constitution also says nothing about space travel, LGBTQ rights. either. How can anyone today think that back in 1776 have foreseen much of what we've seen today. Besides, many of them "owned" a human being. Al, it's way past time you return . Our country needs you.
The framers did give consideration to issues that might come up in the future. You should study the 9th Amendment that allows rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution to be retained by the people. The 9th Amendment is sometimes described as the "catch all" amendment. Virtually anything could become a constitutional right so long as its determined to be adequately associated with other rights that are written into the constitution.
@John Daugherty - I didn't think about it either until your post. From Wikipedia: "Some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Sheridan County, Wyoming closed County fire station because nothing in the constitution about fire protection. Thank you 😊 AL. I'm 68, witnessed this crap all my life.
It seems like that might nullify all their homeowners insurance. Then when some rich guys home burns down, oh well. They can afford to build back. The poorer residents will be the ones who suffer.
Correct. That's a State, city and/or county issue, as are local police, sheriffs, schools etc. As an aside, the majority of fire departments are actually volunteer fire departments.
The constitution does not mention abortion. But it does mention the 9th Amendment. I'm not defending abortion. I am saying that just because a right is not spelled out in the Constitution, that does not mean it does not exist. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what the 9th Amendment says. And if being "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions," to use Alito's words, is a qualifier for being a Constitutional right, then I suppose all of America's most violent racists and homophobes are merely exercising their historical and traditional rights, and we should expect Alito & co. to express that in an opinion, coming soon to a courthouse near you.
Several of the Founders warned against enumerating any rights at all, as they knew people would interpret that as a ceiling rather than a floor. To them, rights like privacy would go without saying.
@@theuglykwan No indeed. The founders were creating a FEDERAL government; there would have been no reason whatsoever to leave individuals’ federal rights up to the whims and vagaries of the state legislatures.
Exactly. Im reading all these democrats comment on the constitution. They have zero understanding of the 10th amendment and the real powers of STATE governments to allow or disallow things.
What's this obsession with the founding fathers anyways? Politics isn't dogma and politicians aren't religious leaders. As science and culture move forward so should our laws and regulations do as well.
When did human nature change so that rights are not a need of life in society? When science and culture move rationally forward, laws will change to protect individual rights in new situations. Oh, you mean forward to equity totalitarian communism. Never mind...
@@TeaParty1776 You took a big leap there, I'm not in favor of communism, or for any type of totalitarian systems. I do think communism is a big scarecrow to divide and push people towards dictatorship. It is the right wing in this country the one constantly undermining Democracy. Coup included.
@@gb7168 But what SCOTUS will firmly establish this summer is that there is no such thing as settled law which will ultimately move the destruction of the country further along...
Mr Franken. You must run for congress again. The nation needs you, I need you, and the thing you did that led you to resign is so small it truly doesn't matter. Your sense of honor and duty are what is weird in today's politics.
Come on Al, run for President. How great would it be to do the state of the union address like this? Skits mixed in, down to earth speaking, general actual sense of humor. Shit at this point ANYONE could be better than The Mango Mussolini.
The Constitution also made no mention of giving speech rights to corporations. But Roberts, Alito and Thomas and others decided to grant speech right to corporations. Corporations that only exist under laws passed by the legislature now cant be limited by those legislators. Maybe we should just outlaw corporations or would that be considered murder of corporations?
How do you give rights to anything which is OWNED property? My dog or chicken should have more rights than any corporation. They cannot declare bankruptcy either, but they can be put in jail, unlike a corporation. Our entire justice system is corrupt and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, so it no longer produces corrupt politicians.
In the 1600s, corporoations were made illegal due to failures that took down whloe economies. This could easily happen again if people wanted to make that a condition of picking future judges. It just needs to be picked as an issue. We're one Supreme Court ruling away from eliminating a massive debt drain on society. Corporations weren't in the Bible and many of their tactics were specifically enumerated as satanic.
Thing that gets me is that the guy that's cited as the authority on the matter, the man everything is hinged on, was a guy who burned women as witches. I mean come on! That's the resource for all US law? Haven't we moved beyond that kind of nonsense?
Thanks for your work in this area. You have spoken the truth in ways that I hope will get more visibility . Women did not have legal,voting rights or property rights . In many states she could not be allowed to present her own case unless she had a male sponsor . It is scary to think that my legal rights could be taken away because it wasn't mentioned in the magna charta...oh wait... The constitution refers to persons who are BORN so if Alito puts the preborn ahead of women what is his basis for that. Please sponsor me when I beg the court to be allowed to wear shoes while I shuffle into the kitchen from the bedroom.
Alito's test is partly built on the principle that, although the Supreme Court has routinely struck down laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional because they violate peoples rights, it was by definition not possible for a legislature prior to the enactment of the Constitution to pass legislation that violated peoples rights, for if any legislation prohibiting a thing existed, that is proof under his test that there is no right to (do) the thing legislated against. Consequently, in accordance with Alito's test, the rights of African's to not be enslaved is merely a legislated right, not a natural right. A more coherent approach to law would clearly indicate that the right to not be enslaved is a natural right consequent on the right to liberty enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, and that the failure to apply that right prior to the 13th Amendment was a gross violation of the rights of millions of humans. IMO, any legal theory that does not entail that slavery was a violation of rights from its first institution, and unconstitutional from time of the passage of the 9th Amendment is not fit for purpose.
I agree wholeheartedly that no-one should ever be enslaved. May I suggest however that slavery may have occurred "naturally" for a long time - consider one village or clan defeating their neighbors and enslaving the adult male "losers," as a possibility. This could give a "lifestyle advantage" to conquerors. In modern times we employ "economic slavery" to the same end. By issuing free credit cards and encouraging overspending we conscript honest citizens to toil at labor rather than lolling in luxury, while forcing them to cover the lifestyles of the economic scofflaws with usury-like interest rates. "Free market competition," that is supposed to be the ideal solution to all social problems, has been implemented in a way that fosters economic slavery. In our USA this is a somewhat moot point when out "enslaved" echelon still lives much better than the sweat shop "slaves" of other countries, or our own "illegal immigrant slaves" "forced" (encouraged or abetted) to work in our fields so we can have "cheap" and abundant food year round. Just another possible way of looking at it.
@@ralphcrawford9741, you give a lot to chew on! Breaking it down, 'natural rights' is a term of art in ethics, meaning any right that arises directly from the ethical obligations people have to each other. It does not imply that violations of those rights could not arise organically (and even frequently) from historical situations. It does, however, imply that anytime it did arise, the group enslaving another group was behaving unethically (in that respect at minimum). I use the term 'organically' for those situations (rather than 'naturally') because in that context, 'naturally' implies that it arises from inbuilt human nature - which I do not believe to be the case. That is, enslavement (unlike murder, for example) never follows as a natural course from human emotions. It is always the result of a calculation. Moving on, while I agree that the modern credit system, and much about the modern wage system (particularly in the USA) is iniquitous, I do not agree that it is usefully (let alone accurately) described as enslavement. The reason is that people voluntarily enter into the credit card contracts, and having done so, voluntarily choose where they will seek employment. It is the involuntary nature that is of the essence of slavery. (I find this ironic given the topic of the video, in that while the Bible contains not a single clear prohibition of abortion; and Jesus is not recorded as ever saying anything related to the topic; the Bible is absolutely clear that the charging of interest on loans is prohibited, and Jesus went further, saying that not only have you no right to charge interest on loans, but you should forgive the repayment of the amount lent as well. That is, Christian Nationalists - and the Christian Right - in general, make a great hullabaloo about topics on which Jesus said nothing, to conceal the fact that they are actively supporting things that Jesus prohibited.)
@krushfield - It wouldn't be as bad if that really were the case. However, when infected Sturgis-goers returned home, they fanned out across the country while carrying the virus with them. The event caused a lot more deaths than just among event participants.
Franken was a good Senator for Minnesota, but he continues to be an undisputed comic Genius!
It also didn't say a corporation is a person with rights under the First Amendment.
👍
I agree. If corporations are people, then what is General Motors' favorite flavor of ice cream? What is Wal-Mart's favorite football team?
If corporations are people... why don't they have the same political donation limits as... people?
I agree how did Corporations ever have rights over us American's?! That's wrong a Corporation is an entity, a business, group of wealthy ppl running a large business Corporations are not individuals! That is pure Facism like Putin & his Russian Oligarch's giving the few Rich the power over the people beneath them us American's out here striving to survive & destroying a Woman's Right's! Woman should not be forced back into cost hangar Abortions & if your a Christian then you should understand that's between God & a woman! What are these Men & so called Christian Coalition going to try us women as witches, just like during The Spanish Inquisition over Women having the right to a safe clesn sterile abortion?!
Per The Bible Life begins at Birth!
Since a corporation is now a person, doesn't this mean that a person is a corporation? If so, then when it comes to paying taxes a person should be able to deduct the cost of housing, utilities, transportation and food as necessary expenses for their "corporation."
I'm not an American but I have compassion for America now as this minority of whack-jobs are sending such a great society straight into a toilet of ignorance; God help us all.
Thank you for your compassion. As a senior disabled female on Social Security, I'm more afraid than I've ever been in my entire life. If things go the way they look like they're going to, "they" could take my only source of income (social security) which would cause the loss of my home. My husband and I could be on the street with no way to even feed ourselves...all within the next couple of years and all we can do about it is vote on machines that have probably been tampered with. Even if they haven't been tampered with, we can no longer trust the people counting, sorting and tabulating our votes. There are those who've made it quite clear that they have no qualms about changing ballots that don't say what they want them to say. All we can do is hope.
We are enduring a polarized media successfully training voters and elected representatives.😊
James Madison also put a paragraph in the bill of rights that said, paraphrased, “just a cause it ain’t listed here doesn’t mean other rights and freedoms don’t exist”.
I visited the Senate in 2012 while in session. The only two senators on the floor were Daniel Inouye and Al Franken.
@David Williamson I've been saying for years that both houses of Congress need time clocks, and each Congressperson and Senator needs to punch in and out...and those punches should be public record. That would let us know which of our representatives were showing up!
How dare they???what would happen if we didn’t show up to work? Or just worked when it was convenient? Guess what? No pay, no benefits, if you have them…..country falls apart? I love you Al Frankenstein!
Franken. Stupid spell check!
@@donnarobinson205 that’s okay. Daniel Inouye is dead.
But was it during an actual Senate session? Or was it one of those times when the Senate is not technically in session but they have a few Senators on the floor? (There are reasons for that I don't feel like going into right now.)
We need Franken back in the senate. He’s one of the few sane ones.
Especially because he got hounded out for a bad joke. We have senators on the right who have paid to have children shipped across state lines to have sex with and try to carry loaded guns on airplanes retaining their seats. One bad joke on the left is political suicde.
He’ll be back in 2024 Dan
Heck with the Senate...Al Franken for President!
He doesn't lie.... So that makes him better than most every republican everywhere.
It will never happen. He got cancelled for making a silly hand gesture that looked like he wanted to grope a woman wearing body armor….no irony there…???? Then he took responsibility unlike a certain p-y grabbing president who said his words were “locker room talk” as if that is acceptable…????
Love this man. Smart and still has a sense of humor. The Senate lost a great guy because of one stupid mistake.
Think of all the idiots he could replace.
you take the word of a sexual offender over the word of countless Constitutional authorities.
The senate didn't lose Franken because of a "mistake"... They got rid of him, because of "appearances".... the radical left was on a "me too" rampage that was intended to target the gop dinosaurs, and the optics were bad because of the pictures that surfaced of Franken having fun with this stupid woman who just wanted media attention.... She knew god damned well that she went to a military base to provide entertainment as a "sexual play thing".... She spent the whole time half naked, jumping out of party cakes, and she had no objection at the time when Franken playfully pretended to grab her breasts, as depicted in the pictures. Franken was an entertainer as well, and it was all done in jest. Franken bowed out so as not to be a distraction to the party's overall agenda... No doubt Franken made mistakes in his life, but the party didn't turn away from him because of a "mistake"!!!!! They stabbed him in the back, because they were afraid that the gop would use the pics to claim hypocrisy!!!!
Am I the only one who thinks that members of government, especially those in leadership and representative roles, should be required to have a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the US Constitution?!?! Am I alone in thinking that an entire first world nation should not be run by absolute morons?!
It is more important that they claim to believe in biblical fairy tales in order to be considered for office.
Your mistake is classifying the USA a a first world nation. It is well on its way to third world status.
Are you criticizing Biden? He is cleaning up the planet (well, many countries are still planning to use fossil fuels!); he is opening up the border so we taxpayers can pay our fair share in taxes. He is managing our military affairs so our young soldiers can die for their country! Don’t forget that he picks candidates for their color, which is racist but necessary for our great country to be divided. He doesn’t really believe in the sanctity of life, but as a Catholic he knows it’s more important to placate the masses. Please give him a break! Pick on Kamala. Even morons can make a contribution to this great country!
@@gvbezoff I couldn’t agree with you more!
@@cartoonraccoon2078 Great snark. Unfortunately, it it al too often true. Heavy Sigh.
Basically none of the "founding fathers" ever missed their period and had to consider it.
Douglas, it sounds like you missed yours. That OK, men can and do get abortions nowdays...that's what your side says.
The right to abortion is there. The right to smoke pot is there. The founding fathers never considered that anyone would ever be stupid or authoritarian enough to tell people what they can't do with their own bodies.
@@redrick8900 I think you are absolutely correct; the topic is never addressed by Christ, either. Any entity, individual or institution (or religion) that believes in Freedom would never impose upon anyone the ultimate right to decide in this matter. Without freedom we are less than ourselves, and then nothing may be real.
@@eugwx9956 Yeah. I always found it weird that so many supposedly "Christian" people consider being anti abortion fundamental to their religious beliefs when the people who wrote their bloated holy book never bothered to mention it.
The constitution didn't have much to say about machine guns, airplanes, iPads, or telephones to name a few
lol
@Charles So, does this mean that I, or anyone else tall enough to get his nose over the counter, should be able to purchase a thousand Uzi submachine guns and a couple million rounds of ammunition? Personally, I believe, that if such weapons had been available at the time, the Second Amendment would read somewhat differently than it does. The point was not that only 'rights' need to have been mentioned in the 'original' text of the constitution, but that not everything that might need protection or regulation could have possibly been anticipated by the framers. The Framers did anticipate the idea that we might want to modify the document from time to time. In fact, the document underwent ten such amendments BEFORE it was even adopted. I personally believe that Justice Alito's argument is specious.
@Charles No. Muskets are "arms" as mentioned in the second amendment, and the right to have even them is only protected as long as a well regulated militia is necessary.
Also, the supposed right to bare arms in no way prevents the government from restricting what arms people may own. A nuke is an arm. Do you think you have a constitutional right to carry one around with you?
The right is clownshoes. All of your beliefs are stupid.
It most certainly did and the founding fathers addressed this too. They well knew that technology would increase. They talked about it at length. The chose to make sure the right to bear arms because they were aware any government could become corrupt and the people, not the government needed to hold the power.
Of course, Biden threatened to nuke us.
And as far as cell phones. You don't have a right to a cell phone.
@Charles - It is of great importance to the strict constructionists, however. The guns conceived of and available at the time of the Bill of Rights were all muzzle loaders. No doubt the stricties will want to weed out all other guns since then.
The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since ratification, a process itself mentioned which means the drafters knew and openly admitted it was intended to grow with the country not constrain it.
I don't think the constitution made reference to the right to a vasectomy, to prostate surgery, or to taking a little blue pill. Therefore these should be illegal.
Hello genius, neither one of those harms the integrity of an unconsenting human
@marlonmoore5000 Nope, genius, it wasn't about concent it was about it not being in the constitution.
The really scary part is that the arguments used against Roe vs Wade can be used against a long list of decisions like; the right to privacy, marriage, environmental laws, child labor laws are not in the "original" constitution.. every day I lose a bit more of my faith in humanity.
Well, maybe not all humanity, just the RepubliCon side of humanity!
Those should be passed by the government as statute or amending the constitution. If we can't do that we've got bigger things to worry about than the supreme court. There is something fundamentally wrong with government. It means we've reached a new low when fundamental stuff like that can't be done without judges issuing a ruling.
Powerful courts are dangerous. We saw in the past how often they overturned decent laws congress passed like anti discrimination laws in businesses. It set back the movement by 80 years or so. They will do that again and republicans will dominate the senate so it will be even worse. They just legalized direct bribing of politicians in the Ted Cruz case.
I have a strong suspicion that what these justices have done is shortened the time before which the Constitution will be introduced to the shredder.
Brown v. Board of Education. Birth Control. In vitro. Same sex marriage. Interracial marriage. Healthcare. LGBTQ rights. Freedom of the Press. Let's face it, the entire Constitution is up for grabs. Except guns and anything white men want.
i want to believe in the goodness of humanity but i can find no examples
Al, I'm still convinced you were sabotaged.
Your voice was, and still is more valuable than most people even realize.
We need you back! Maybe Speaker of the House 🤔💙
Maybe Senator, replacing Klobuchar!
of the out house!
I’m Al Franken, and . . .
Yes, it could be the Al Franken decade...again.
He should still be in the senate.
Man, Al, his just makes your honorable decision to step away even more infuriariting. Not that you did the right thing, but that you did in front of corrupt idiots on both sides that don't have your ethics or strength. Boy we sure miss you... here's hopin you decide to give it another go.
YES! PLEASE RUN AGAIN!!!!
The man violated a woman he has no business in any public office!
czcams.com/video/z_NoXF_-DWA/video.html
Why aren't the inseminator's feet being held to the same fire as women? That a males role in a pregnancy isn't even part of the conversation, tells you everything you need to know about who's behind this.
Every sperm is sacred!
czcams.com/video/bzVHjg3AqIQ/video.html
And just when do Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito, write an opinion about the V word crime. Who is going to write the law that pays $10,000 to someone who identifies a male who contributes to a pregnancy and assures his support of the child through college.
Yeah, they should have to pay child support.
Conservatives are making laws punishing women HOWEVER women don't impregnate themselves.
Why? Because that's not necessary. Don't believe me?
Wait until the Repuglicans take the House and Senate _(not to mention the Presidency in 2024)._
After that happened, they will first make women the property of their fathers/husbands again, and then they'll force r4ped women to marry their r4pist.
Exactly like they handle it in countries under sharia law.
Five cases of confirmation Perjury. Two stolen seats. One unvetted seat sold in the open.
All thanks to President Orangutan.
And you think jackson can address the matter of abortion rights, where she can't even say what a 'woman' is?
And find the Ginsberg remarks on the subject, where never too late for enlightened people like you to cancel
her.
@@thomasmargolis6057 I imagine you think you are endowed with an eternal soul at conception and will live forever in paradise while I will be tortured forever in hell. Your god is a monster and you are no better.
@@thomasmargolis6057 There is no legal definition of a "woman", only a "female". The Republicans asked a stupid question that no one learned in law could answer. If you'd bother to learn more about this yourself, you wouldn't keep repeating this stupid point as if it means anything.
@@thomasmargolis6057 You know damn well why Judge Jackson didn't answer the question. But the attempts of people with your thinking are nothing more than attempts to promote a false narrative that's dishonest.
Dang, Al Franken, now I can't be sure if the founding fathers actually had this conversation or not due to copious notes. Because, Ben Franklin did indeed write a paper about an effective herbal medication for inducing abortions.
I'm inclined to suspect it's made up, but based on his knowledge of American history.
@@hoppytoad79 In turn, I am inclined to believe that Al Franken has accurately quoted the contemporaneous notes taken by James Madison. @Marc Johnson comment re: Ben Franklin's "effective herbal medication" lends veracity to Senator Franklin's retelling.
Well one problem is Ben never wore a wig, at least at this time. He also said it was safe. Some of the " herbal" recipes weren't safe. If they were we would be still use them.
@@robertpearce4316 1. Ben is not shown with a wig in Franken's renderings. So, you have a point you're trying to make? 2. Oh yeah, something about Ben Franklin's herbal remedy... and that if worked then, that abortion would be acceptable now? Ergo, because BF's 1787 herbal remedy was flawed, it's perfectly legit that abortion is unconstitutional in 2022? I'm just wondering where you're going with this, Robert.
@@JBN137 yea my point was nothing to do with the constitution or Ben. It was about the flaw permiss of the jackess al was making. Al was making false statements.
I'm for pro choice but I'm not going to listen to every jackess false narrative. I didn't even know Ben had a recipes for abortion, because he told younger men to have sex with older women for the fact they can't get pregnant.
Ways of getting rid of a child goes back way before Ben, and none are used today. Why the didn't work or they were not safe.
So your say artist chose not to put a wig on Ben. The wig was an elitist European deal. Which Washington fit. Not the northern founding fathers. It was a good sound bite for al.
Franken is witty and level-headed; he was one of the very few Congress members who honestly expressed remorse for one error in judgment he made. We all make mistakes in life; the important thing is to learn from them and move on. Franken has done both of these things beautifully.
Other members of Congress have been blatant in their lifestyle without consequences. Other politicians have preyed upon minors and violated the law and their oath of office.
If he was level headed, he wouldn't have been a Democrat.
Yeah, cause Trump supporters are rational thinkers! Hilarious 😂 😃 😄!!
@@ffjsb U R a clever comedian (Not)
The leak was by Ginni Thomas because she was so pleased and eager to share that news with her fellow conservatives.
Yup, that's what I've heard whispered around.
Makes sense.
With her big mouth it makes perfect sense.
I can see Ginni trying to nail down the votes.
I agree! She was the first to come to mind. She loves to stir the pot. She's so evil!
we love you 💜 Al Franken we need you back in Washington DC
It's a perilous time the battle for democracy
is still on going
🇺🇸♥️💔
He’ll be back Vickie in 2024
Hell ya!!!!
Love that Franken has the name plate of Paul Wellstone on his bookshelf. He is missed.
The Conservatives in the SCOTUS should not have infinite power when they have limited minds.
Thank you Al for pointing out all of their hypocrisy on what the Constitution did or did not expressly state! I agree with your assessment that Alito leaked the draft, or one of his clerks!
Damn, we need you back in the Senate.
Nope, we need him as president.
@@theuglykwan I'd vote for him! He's a good man.
We have Kirsten Gillibrand to thank for the removal of Franken from Congress when we needed him most. She might as well have been working for Trump.
If Franken actually had a set of balls he would have stayed but his party is full of snowflakes who are offended at everything so he was sacrificed.
They didn’t mention automatic weapons either but they thought human intelligence would continue to guide this republic. Little did they know the degeneration that would follow the industrial revolution.
When Alito whines about the declining “domestic supply of infants”, he means “domestic supply of white infants”
What do they intend to do with all the other babies?
Yes, and the implication is that being female obligates one to"supply infants " regardless of personal choice. That is the only justification for our existence.
@@jeanniep1003 if Trumps caging of children at theborder is anything to go by, its not good
“Domestic supply” when speaking of humans is especially gross.
Also, banning abortion wont increase this “supply” of the
lack-of-melatonin folks they prefer.
@@jeanniep1003 They'll eventually become cheap labor, or more inmates for the prison for profit pipeline, or cannon fodder for unending wars. Just like they are today.
The constitution makes no mention of the right to be stupid. However, many politicians....
Unfortunately the right to be stupid is a very longstanding right in the USA!
Very astute. You made me smile while recognizing the agony of that truth.
Bravo!
Bazinga!
Most of them only seem stupid if you think they have good intentions. They don't. They exploit the stupidity of others for their own gain. They're scammers.
The Constitution also doesn't say that if you're charged with a crime, you're innocent until proven guilty. The Supreme Court could rule it's the other way around if they felt like it.
@Charles Anyone that says any totalitarian measure is unlikely from the Republicans has their head in the sand. They already attempted a violent coup and worked with the Russians to steal elections.
Not in so many words but it does. The 6th amendment covers it by stating impartial trial. If you're already guilty an impartial trial is not possible.
Due process certainly is established in the Constitution
Thanks, Mr Franken. ❤ From an Aussie in Ireland, looking aghast at the retardation of human rights in the USA by zealots elected by billionaire megadonors and the brainwashing of the fearful and ignorant by rightwing propaganda. (the Irish, constitution as written by the Irish Republicans in the 1916 uprising, was the first in history to include women in it's foundation and another hundred years to ensure obstetric choices for women in Ireland, along with Marriage Equality, but Separation of Church and State is an achievable human right)
What I haven't seen anybody point out is that Alito's new "test" for constitutionally supported rights having to have a long tradition in American history is - literally - the same as eliminating the entire possibility of progress. He's basically saying that rights can only exist if they've already been "grandfathered in" by having existed fifty or a hundred or more years ago. This literally makes progress an impossibility, since the recognition of any new rights is made impossible if this test is applied.
(It also baldly ignores the ninth amendment to the constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)
I mentioned it. But you're right about the elimination of progress. This is not a new concept with the Supreme Court. They've done it before with rulings on qualified immunity, and also federal habeas corpus proceedings. And eliminating rights is not new either. The Fourth Amendment is barely clinging to life, and then only at your front door. Step outside your house and it's gone. And sometimes, you don't need to step outside for it to disappear.
No, he wants the courts to no make laws. Isn't that what so-called democracy is all about. So much hypocrisy, so little time. Democracy apparently only matters when you're stuffing the ballot box with dead votes.
I wondered the same. So we are frozen in time now with only wealthy, land holding white men having any guaranteed rights?forever more? Never changing? Always and forever? Eternity?
Massa gonna smiiile bout that.
al franken is fighting hard to kill babies. interesting how people fight hard to kill the human life in the womb. the dems have used abortion to kill millions of black babies
Wrong. What this means is that the lefties and libs will have to stop relying on the SCOTUS to enshrine things in law (and there's one hell of a lot of them) that they can't get done legislatively. Oh, dear me.
Yep Al...not one of those right wing judges said they wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade. They just said it was settled precedent. How stupid do these senators think we are? We all knew this was coming, just didn't know when. My money's on Roberts as the leaker.
Agreed on the leaker, makes the most sense to me. He need help against the wingnuts.
I think that Ginny Thomas is the leaker
the supreme court does not operate in the light of popular opinion on the street.
thank God.
I thought the same thing. I think he's on board with the 15 week thing from the Mississippi law but I don't believe he thinks overturning Roe is ok.
@@LlyleHunter probably from her diaper.
The Constitution makes no express reference to the right to eat meat. Therefore, it is now perfectly Constitutional to force everyone to become vegetarian! Yay!!!
You also have no right to eat vegetables and everyone can be forced to be a carnivore. All vegetables shall be forbidden. That's a can of worms you wouldn't want to open as there are far, far more meat eaters.
The constitution doesn't mention a lot of things, doesn't mean they're illegal, and Roe v Wade was declared constitutional in 1973 by a 7 to 2 vote, with 5 of the 7 voting to declare it constitutional being republican appointees.
Various Supreme Courts upheld and allowed the continuation of slavery, too. Did that make it right?
@@robertwomack6109 Y don't U answer that first ?
@@chunck2001 No, of course it didn't make it right. No reasonable person of ethical/moral character would ever defend the practice of one human being owning another like a piece of property. Laws and court decisions make and/or uphold the legality of some human practice, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the practice is ethically or morally appropriate. History is full of examples of this.
@@robertwomack6109 You should read more! Slavery and its continuation, was the tease that made ratification of the Constitution possible. Slavery was given twenty years after the ratification to fester uncontested, and it was only after that period that the argument for or against was taken up. Dred Scott for example.
@@li2us Yes--and you completely missed the point. Just because a government or that government's constitution says something is okay, that doesn't mean it is. Just like a constitution saying something is wrong doesn't mean it is. Society is held together by a moral code that pre-dates and supersedes any particular legal. No society needs a piece of paper or a court ruling to know that people owning other people is wrong. Society also doesn't need a piece of paper or a court ruling to know it is wrong to kill an innocent life. Roe v.Wade was passed because of political pressure and no other reason.
Al and his compatriots are having fun and I am totally 'here for it'.
Ninth Amendment. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes!
SNL writers ALWAYS have my respect and should always run for office.. You have shown us that the truth is always in front of you. Thank you and I hope you run again
SNL is woke crap now.
Awww, thank you, Al. You help me stand back a bit, hold on, not go crazy about this issue and actually laugh. Love you lots!
Thank you for posting this podcast Al Franken .
Yea better late than never Franken ..people like you leaving released the deplorables to run amok.
Miss you, Al. Wish you were in Congress, preferably for my state, or maybe better in our President's cabinet.
Glad he isn't. Yet another Democrat who cheated to get elected.
I Totally Feel The EXACT Same Way !! We NEED YOU BACK , AL 🙏🇺🇸🗽
Better in the senate. The president has little power if he can't get bills through. I'm looking at you, manchin, sinema.
"Presumed innocent until proven guilty" is not in the constitution either. They could vote to remove it, because why not.
Our nation was formed by slaveholders who said "all men are created equal". Comedian, George Carlin
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it"
-some multimillionaire joke teller
@@russellm2555 George Carlin wasn't that rich. He wasted allot of money during his life time similar to Johnny Depp, and Carlin didn't make anywhere near what Depp has made acting.
@Denton Fender - Carlin is being quotes more and more often these days as his words are gaining more relevance.
I really miss Al Franken's common sense in the government. He made a mistake, but we lost a good man.
His so called mistake was nothing compared to those still there
All forgiven please comeback
@@philipvanderwaal6817 lol why? this shitbarge is on it's way down. he's just venting for the sake of sanity.
What mistake did he make exactly? Please do illuminate all of us.
@@mcpappysgolden He posed for a photo that looked like he was groping the breasts of a sleeping female soldier. His hands were well above her chest, but perspective made it look like he was fondling her. Bad joke, but how does that hold up against a child sex trafficker and a senator trying to take a loaded gun onto an airplane?
The Talibangelicals are on the march
Hilarious. I’m stealing that term.
@@TheDizzleHawke or is it the Evangenitals? 🤔
Very well said sir
@@realitywave Vanilla ISIS
The leak is not that big a deal. The issue is the big deal. GOP always gets more upset about leaks and whistleblowers than about the actual issue.
The justices are saying the leak undermines the trust in the Supreme Court 😂😂😂😂
That ship sailed long time ago when they hired Justice Thomas, a sex abuser who should be homeless or in jail but he was rewarded with a power position for life
Benjamin Franklin published a reference book that provided detailed information on how to
cause abortions by taking specific herbs. Abortion was generally practiced and approved of.
Any day with a short and sweet LIVE video from Al Franken is a good day. Your guess about leaker being Alito himself sounds credible. Loved your assessment of it all and your Susan Collins impression was uncanny plus your take on the constitutional convention was hilarious
@ batguurl 🎯👍
I TOTALLY AGREE !!
AL's THEE BEST !!
I Thought His Entire Video Was BRILLIANT ! Such a "Tragic Lose" When He Left The Senate ! He Would've Made The Difference 💯
Entertaining and misinforming. ‘White males’, etc.
Well done Al. Thanks for what you do.
The Constitution does not mention a number of rights, and abortion was legal until "quickening", or until the mother felt the baby move, which is generally right around viability--which Alito conveniently ignores. I've looked at the leaked opinion, and Alito (paraphrasing) says, "Even though abortion wasn't illegal prior to quickening, citizens knew the states had the power to make it illegal if they wanted to" as a justification/support/whatever you want to call it for the opinion. Yes, the states *could have* made abortion illegal prior to quickening, but they didn't, so YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.
Shake things up. Add four justices to SCOTUS. There's going to be 4 women on the court when Bryer steps down. Imagine 8 women's nurturing nature against 5 old boys! 😊🍿👍
republicans will dominate the senate. that won't end well. if dems can do it, republicans can do it more. u start that and you get maybe 2 years of riding high and then a near permanent republican senate with predictable results.
My God. I have lived in the South nearly all my life, and that is a scarily-accurate impression of a Southern Trump supporter. Also, I guess I have never seen Al without his glasses on before today.
Rule of thumb: the longer someone takes to answer a question, the less truthful it is. And when a trained lawyer adds Latin phrases, you just know the BS is being slung like a pro.
Would you rather their opinions just say the word "yes" or "no"? That rule of thumb probably ought not be adhered to.
Yes. The question posed is requesting a very direct response, not a bunch of legal weasel words.
@@franvarga709 You’re describing a legislature, not a court of law.
@@-dash Right. The legislature represents the public, and the public deserves a straight answer. The legal gobledy gook is for a court of law for judges to sort out.
@@-dash And that is exactly where they are when asked the questions: The capitol, a legislative building not a court of law.
I don't think this can be repeated enough! Abortion was unregulated, available and safe before the Constitution was written and for many decades afterwards.
And according to the Holy Catholic Church, abortion was allowed up until the "quickening", which referred to the fetal movements that could be detected at the time. The anti-abortion crowd does not base its claims on historical precedent. Just their feel-good sensibilities.
Please run for president
Senator Al Franken made me proud, and am thoroughly proud of him still.
Great to see Franken again. Wish he would get back into politics. He did an amazing job!
Also,The Constitution makes no reference to…. Educating children. And….Pretty much anything else.
Of course, which means its reserved exclusively to state governments under the tenth amendment...no federal involvement.
The Constitution's purpose was to define what the Federal Government could do, not what individuals could do. The Amendments address that if I'm not mistaken.
You are mistaken. The constitution defines what the federal government can not do.
@@chasthanhburns123 Nice sophistry twist there, buddy. I suggest you reread the document. It specifically defines how the Federal Government shall be constructed and also defines what PERSONAL RIGHTS humans have that no State shall infringe. It leaves those duties and legislative options not assigned to the Federal Government to the States.
@@dridadbunkerphd6523 I don't necessarily think it's accurate to say that Tank Taylor was mistaken. However, with regard to the rights, particularly the first and second, they describe what the Federal Government can not do. It proscribes the FG from infringing on rights of the people rather than "giving" those rights to the people. But, I think you were also saying that pretty much.
@@dridadbunkerphd6523 I dont need to reread the document, bud. I was giving a flippant oppositional view to Tank Taylor for comedic value on the internet.
Go find some gender bending male that wants to give birth to a baby and try to correct that ignorance.
@@chasthanhburns123 Transgender men have gotten pregnant. Your turn to do your homework and correct your own ignorance, Bud... BTW: Your attempt a humor failed - miserably. Don't give up your day job to become a comedian. Have a nice life.
Brilliant Al!!!; Thank you! I grew up with you on SNL, people often thought I was you, and now I have a deep appreciation of your political commentary, humour can transcend the insanity of this time. I would love it if you decide to return to the Senate. You left with grace and dignity. Thanks Al!!!
Does the Constitution make any reference to control of oil prices, tea in China, citizenship of a Canadian Refugee?
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The founding fathers bit is brilliant. 😂
Whatever one’s views on Roe v Wade, how did anyone paying attention not see what the justices were going to try to do? I told people to watch how the first thing they’d do was rule against some minor issue from Trump so they could claim they were impartial and just following the law.
The whipped Democrats were so wrong to force you from the Senate. Look at the creeps that are on the Supreme Court it all makes me sick.
The Founding Fathers also didn't mention FAA regulations in the Constitution.
@John Spain - But according to trump, they did have airports during the Revolution, so go figure.
The constitution also doesn’t mention airplanes. How prevalent was abortion in the 18th century?
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about men being able to take boner pills either. So we should criminalize that too, huh?
It was fairly common in Ancient Rome lol
Abortion was not illegal, and was preformed when we were a new nation. It wasn't until the the Comstock Act that it became illegal.
Also, an interesting point is that the evangelical right didn't care about abortion, until it helped them to get more members to their churches.
The airforce is likely unconstitutional. However, such a ruling would just lead to it being re-organized under another branch of the military. The political will to do that is there and bipartisan. The same cannot be said for culture war issues like abortion.
@@teleriferchnyfain Lots of ancient civilizations would abandon unwanted new born either in the wild or throw them in with garbage.
I imagine we'll get more cases of babies being left in dumpsters in the next year.
I may have met you AL when you just started at SNL. I picked up /delivered many scripts to a certain office as a NYC bike messenger way back then. The office had a "secret name" that I know .Good to know the Sturgis motorcyclist is a fiction in Al's mind and another COVID -19 victim. Great acting. I actually bought it right to the end. Thank you Mr. Franken. Yes the constitution did not mention most of the world we live in let alone ladies. Gun control:
Well regulated militias with single shot muskets. The constitution does not mention "The Bushmaster" the choice of many mad men in mass shootings in the good ol' USA.
BULLS-EYE 🎯 Very Well Explained , with AWESOME COMPARISONS !! I'm Not Being a Smart Alec , but maybe YOU Should Take a Deep-Dive into Politics 👍
The 2d Amendment MUST be read (and understood) IN CONJUNCTION with Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 which clearly define (and limit) the purposes for which ``the Militia`` may be ``called forth to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions`` as was done with Shays Rebellion (1786-87) and the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-94). In the late 1800s the Militia was remade into what we now know as the National Guard. The 2d Amendment was drafted in 1789, the same year the original Constitution (including Article I) was fully ratified. The 2d Amendment was drafted essentially by the same (male) Founders who only two years before had drafted Article I so, clearly, the use of the word ``Militia`` in the 2d Amendment was INTENDED to have the SAME meaning it had in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16!!
@@cogitoxyz9645 - The whole Bill of Rights was an attempt by Congress to reign in the outrages that were forced upon citizens by the British during the Revolution. When the British did these things, it was not expressly illegal to usurp one's private dwelling in order to house hostile troops, to shut down printing presses, to force one religion on a People (ie: the Church of England), to disband militias that were trying to defend their regions, etc. Strict constructionists must be aware of this, but turn their heads.
We need more of Al Franken! I adore his wit and sense of humor. 😍😍
First, this is right on. Second, I love Al Franken. His Senate career is a prime example of the Democrats cutting their own throats. My wife and I have never understood how his actions deserved punishing him or our country like this. I wish we could have him back in the Senate.
The Constitution makes no reference to the right to obtain an antibiotic. Ben Franklin: WTF is a bacteria..?
Americans still don't have a right to antibiotics unless they can PAY for them.
Not really a right then, is it, @@normabaker5837
@@normabaker5837
Very True ! 👊💯
@ Cookie Monster 😂
Good One ! It's True , tho.!
Every bacterium is sacred.
The Constitution also says nothing about space travel, LGBTQ rights. either. How can anyone today think that back in 1776 have foreseen much of what we've seen today. Besides, many of them "owned" a human being. Al, it's way past time you return . Our country needs you.
Really, Al!
With such ageism as we have in this country, we just gotta get you back in before you get past your BEST BY date.
The framers did give consideration to issues that might come up in the future. You should study the 9th Amendment that allows rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution to be retained by the people. The 9th Amendment is sometimes described as the "catch all" amendment. Virtually anything could become a constitutional right so long as its determined to be adequately associated with other rights that are written into the constitution.
I love that Al is back; it’s just a shame he can’t also be helping our congress.
I wish he would challenge Gillibrand for Senate.
I love how the Republicans always remember the Ninth Amendment when they want to, then completely 'forget' about it it when it's inconvenient.
@John Daugherty - I didn't think about it either until your post. From Wikipedia:
"Some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Sheridan County, Wyoming closed County fire station because nothing in the constitution about fire protection. Thank you 😊 AL. I'm 68, witnessed this crap all my life.
It seems like that might nullify all their homeowners insurance. Then when some rich guys home burns down, oh well. They can afford to build back. The poorer residents will be the ones who suffer.
That sounds like a county commission issue, not a federal one.
Correct. That's a State, city and/or county issue, as are local police, sheriffs, schools etc. As an aside, the majority of fire departments are actually volunteer fire departments.
The constitution does not mention abortion. But it does mention the 9th Amendment. I'm not defending abortion. I am saying that just because a right is not spelled out in the Constitution, that does not mean it does not exist. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what the 9th Amendment says. And if being "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions," to use Alito's words, is a qualifier for being a Constitutional right, then I suppose all of America's most violent racists and homophobes are merely exercising their historical and traditional rights, and we should expect Alito & co. to express that in an opinion, coming soon to a courthouse near you.
Several of the Founders warned against enumerating any rights at all, as they knew people would interpret that as a ceiling rather than a floor.
To them, rights like privacy would go without saying.
Would that approach not mean it is down to the states and the people to sort that out?
@@theuglykwan No indeed. The founders were creating a FEDERAL government; there would have been no reason whatsoever to leave individuals’ federal rights up to the whims and vagaries of the state legislatures.
@@andrewmastin4312 l
@@andrewmastin4312 The 10th Amendment says otherwise. The founders didn't mention abortion in the Constitution because it isn't a federal matter.
Damn bro, that impersonation was spot on. You got that shaky neck voice down perfectly. 🤣
So, I guess the US Constitution isn’t the perfect document that Conservatives claim it is
We like to call them, AMENDMENTS!
@@li2us Your comment doesn’t even make any sense
Exactly. Im reading all these democrats comment on the constitution. They have zero understanding of the 10th amendment and the real powers of STATE governments to allow or disallow things.
What's this obsession with the founding fathers anyways? Politics isn't dogma and politicians aren't religious leaders. As science and culture move forward so should our laws and regulations do as well.
When did human nature change so that rights are not a need of life in society? When science and culture move rationally forward, laws will change to protect individual rights in new situations. Oh, you mean forward to equity totalitarian communism. Never mind...
@@TeaParty1776 You took a big leap there, I'm not in favor of communism, or for any type of totalitarian systems. I do think communism is a big scarecrow to divide and push people towards dictatorship. It is the right wing in this country the one constantly undermining Democracy. Coup included.
@@naokitoiko2701 Both left and right hate individual rights. Both are collectivist.
Atlas Shrugged-Ayn Rand
The Constitution also makes no statement that you are innocent until proven guilty either... so that could also be on the block too...
@@gb7168 But what SCOTUS will firmly establish this summer is that there is no such thing as settled law which will ultimately move the destruction of the country further along...
Mr Franken. You must run for congress again. The nation needs you, I need you, and the thing you did that led you to resign is so small it truly doesn't matter. Your sense of honor and duty are what is weird in today's politics.
Love you Al
Thank you for all the good work you’re still doing
Could be Ginny Thomas. Clarence probably brought it home to read and who else but his best friend was invited to read it as well.
I LIKE BEER!!! I SAVED MY CALENDERS FROM COLLEGE LOOK HOW NORMAL I AM LET ME BE ON THE SUPREME COURT OR IM GONNA CRY AGAIN
Come on Al, run for President. How great would it be to do the state of the union address like this? Skits mixed in, down to earth speaking, general actual sense of humor. Shit at this point ANYONE could be better than The Mango Mussolini.
Was abortion even a thing in those days? A good analogy would be like asking why didn't the bible say gun crime was a sin.
From Canada, always happy to hear from you Senator Al ! 🇨🇦🙏🇺🇦
The Constitution also made no mention of giving speech rights to corporations. But Roberts, Alito and Thomas and others decided to grant speech right to corporations. Corporations that only exist under laws passed by the legislature now cant be limited by those legislators. Maybe we should just outlaw corporations or would that be considered murder of corporations?
How do you give rights to anything which is OWNED property?
My dog or chicken should have more rights than any corporation.
They cannot declare bankruptcy either, but they can be put in jail, unlike a corporation.
Our entire justice system is corrupt and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, so it no longer produces corrupt politicians.
In the 1600s, corporoations were made illegal due to failures that took down whloe economies. This could easily happen again if people wanted to make that a condition of picking future judges. It just needs to be picked as an issue. We're one Supreme Court ruling away from eliminating a massive debt drain on society.
Corporations weren't in the Bible and many of their tactics were specifically enumerated as satanic.
@@politickery9412 yes, corporations are satanic
dictatorship & slavery are satanic
Thing that gets me is that the guy that's cited as the authority on the matter, the man everything is hinged on, was a guy who burned women as witches. I mean come on! That's the resource for all US law? Haven't we moved beyond that kind of nonsense?
Apparantly Ben Franklin wrote a book that included how to perform an abortion.
I was listening, not watching, so thought Al was doing an excellent Kavanaugh impression!
The Susan Collins impression 🤣😂
@MP G - I wish that Susan Collins would impersonate the Susan Collins persona she so carefully crafts during election years.
@@MossyMozart exactly....
Thanks for your work in this area. You have spoken the truth in ways that I hope will get more visibility . Women did not have legal,voting rights or property rights . In many states she could not be allowed to present her own case unless she had a male sponsor . It is scary to think that my legal rights could be taken away because it wasn't mentioned in the magna charta...oh wait...
The constitution refers to persons who are BORN so if Alito puts the preborn ahead of women what is his basis for that.
Please sponsor me when I beg the court to be allowed to wear shoes while I shuffle into the kitchen from the bedroom.
Alito's test is partly built on the principle that, although the Supreme Court has routinely struck down laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional because they violate peoples rights, it was by definition not possible for a legislature prior to the enactment of the Constitution to pass legislation that violated peoples rights, for if any legislation prohibiting a thing existed, that is proof under his test that there is no right to (do) the thing legislated against. Consequently, in accordance with Alito's test, the rights of African's to not be enslaved is merely a legislated right, not a natural right.
A more coherent approach to law would clearly indicate that the right to not be enslaved is a natural right consequent on the right to liberty enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, and that the failure to apply that right prior to the 13th Amendment was a gross violation of the rights of millions of humans. IMO, any legal theory that does not entail that slavery was a violation of rights from its first institution, and unconstitutional from time of the passage of the 9th Amendment is not fit for purpose.
I agree wholeheartedly that no-one should ever be enslaved.
May I suggest however that slavery may have occurred "naturally" for a long time - consider one village or clan defeating their neighbors and enslaving the adult male "losers," as a possibility. This could give a "lifestyle advantage" to conquerors.
In modern times we employ "economic slavery" to the same end. By issuing free credit cards and encouraging overspending we conscript honest citizens to toil at labor rather than lolling in luxury, while forcing them to cover the lifestyles of the economic scofflaws with usury-like interest rates.
"Free market competition," that is supposed to be the ideal solution to all social problems, has been implemented in a way that fosters economic slavery. In our USA this is a somewhat moot point when out "enslaved" echelon still lives much better than the sweat shop "slaves" of other countries, or our own "illegal immigrant slaves" "forced" (encouraged or abetted) to work in our fields so we can have "cheap" and abundant food year round.
Just another possible way of looking at it.
@@ralphcrawford9741, you give a lot to chew on!
Breaking it down, 'natural rights' is a term of art in ethics, meaning any right that arises directly from the ethical obligations people have to each other. It does not imply that violations of those rights could not arise organically (and even frequently) from historical situations. It does, however, imply that anytime it did arise, the group enslaving another group was behaving unethically (in that respect at minimum).
I use the term 'organically' for those situations (rather than 'naturally') because in that context, 'naturally' implies that it arises from inbuilt human nature - which I do not believe to be the case. That is, enslavement (unlike murder, for example) never follows as a natural course from human emotions. It is always the result of a calculation.
Moving on, while I agree that the modern credit system, and much about the modern wage system (particularly in the USA) is iniquitous, I do not agree that it is usefully (let alone accurately) described as enslavement. The reason is that people voluntarily enter into the credit card contracts, and having done so, voluntarily choose where they will seek employment. It is the involuntary nature that is of the essence of slavery.
(I find this ironic given the topic of the video, in that while the Bible contains not a single clear prohibition of abortion; and Jesus is not recorded as ever saying anything related to the topic; the Bible is absolutely clear that the charging of interest on loans is prohibited, and Jesus went further, saying that not only have you no right to charge interest on loans, but you should forgive the repayment of the amount lent as well. That is, Christian Nationalists - and the Christian Right - in general, make a great hullabaloo about topics on which Jesus said nothing, to conceal the fact that they are actively supporting things that Jesus prohibited.)
I am glad I bought a keyboard cover I laughed so hard at this I coughed apple juice everywhere. LOVE THIS. Keep your wigs on, hahaha.
I keep seeing Wellstone's flag behind you. Can't help wonder how things might be different if he was still involved.
@Jay Bee - I disagree. Wellstone was a great man.
"Unfortunately, less than a month later, Jarvis died at age 54 in the sturgis i.c.u." Now that's comedy!
Jarvis died of long term cancer. Look it up !!! Someones death is comedy. Typical leftist commie.
@krushfield - It wouldn't be as bad if that really were the case. However, when infected Sturgis-goers returned home, they fanned out across the country while carrying the virus with them. The event caused a lot more deaths than just among event participants.
Nailed it Al Franken.......doesn't say anything about needing a driver's license either does it?