Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Featuring co-authors Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center, and Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; and Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston, and Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute; with Hon. Thomas Hardiman, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and David Savage, Supreme Court Correspondent, Los Angeles Times; moderated by Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
An Introduction to Constitutional Law will teach you the narrative of constitutional law as it has developed over the past two centuries. All readers - even those unfamiliar with American history - will learn the essential background for grasping how this body of law has come to be what it is today. The accompanying online video library brings to life the Supreme Court’s 100 most important decisions; the videos are enriched by photographs, maps, and even audio from Supreme Court arguments. More importantly, this multimedia work is accessible to all: students in law school, college, high school, and homeschool, as well as lifelong learners pursuing independent study. Law students can read and watch these materials to prepare for class or use the platform after class to fill in any gaps in their notes. Come exam time, students can binge-watch the entire canon of constitutional law in about 12 hours. Please join us to learn about this innovative project, with comment by a prominent federal judge and a leading Supreme Court reporter.
Learn more: www.cato.org/events/introduct...
Want to find the Cato Institute elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / catoinstitute
Twitter - / catoinstitute
Instagram - / catoinstitute
-
Thanks CATO. The Constitution don't need to be re-written...It needs to be re-read!
*doesn't
@@jrambo7495 TnxQ
It needs cases like these to stand on top of for all time or it has nothing else to live for. That or eventually begin to do the opposite.
Agreed 👍💯
@@jrambo7495 Grammar Nazi. 😂🤣😂
I’m a non-law student just interested. Thank you for posting.
The reason (I believe) when it comes to flip flopping of constitutional vs unconstitutional is that you have some judges, justices, lawyers, etc. that are political stricken when it comes to interpreting laws. The laws are interpreted in a way that benefits whatever side they support.
That's why we need to know case law SCOTUS opinions and circuit court appeals.. and Constitution....
I think they all do. They read the cases they like and listen to the cases they are interested in. None of these judges read cases they find uninteresting and never see the other side
All this shit rigged bro if u thinking that
SrQl😊
Moore v ..
czcams.com/video/XRwNLMeNsCc/video.htmlsi=NtGg13mqwLw6qKvO
When people have more awareness about laws,future cases would be reduced due to legal awareness.Automatically court work will be reduced if cases are less
Lemme save you time….. buy the book. 15minutes in and I finally realized they were not gonna start breaking down the constitution. 😹
🤣🤣I'm 35min in...🙄. Great job promoting the book, though 👏 👌
25 minutes in and no cases explained yet😂🤣😅
It was the swallowing.. I don't want to hear you drinking... your throat makes gross noises
Y’all gonna start listening in 1.5x - 2x speed like the rest of us if you keep getting duped like that lul
"Prostitution is an economic activity. Marriage is not an economic activity..."
Uh, you've never been married before, have you?
Lol, a quick Google search values the wedding industry at over $50 Billion. The WEDDING industry, that's just the beginning of marriage. How many more billions are spent on the other 99% of the marriage?
Or divorced 🙄
The marriage license provides the state’s priority ownership over the “business” and ownership of it’s product, the children, hence, we have CPS, the educators, pharma, all involved/helping as overseers.
That is not what he said.
ha, ha, very observant. There is definitely a producer and a consumer... But, contract law goes right out the window every time the consumer with holds sex.🛌😭
Any statute in conflict with the constitution has no effect and it is as of the statute never existed. Get your facts straight about what is LAWFUL and UNLAWFUL and what is subversive activity done under color of law or official right. Stop dancing around what is lawful vs. unlawful with the specious arguments about what is constitutional vs legal. That is a fallacy. Nothing unconstitutional is legal. Subversion of protected constitutional rights and the criminal code is a felony. PERIOD. If a bill drafter and legislator(s) make, or attempt to make, a statute that causes harm, measurable damages, or deprives a right, a crime has been committed and subversive activity is evident, and they lose qualified immunity. An offense against the citizen is an offense against the United States, as they are "one in the same". Statutes are not law and are applied by men in their personal capacities, and they have strict liability. The making, application ,or practice of law, that deprives a protected right or obstructs, delays, or otherwise hinders the administration of justice , by any party under oath, is subversive activity and an act of treason, and ,where a common agency can be shown, to have colluded in or gained a benefit from the criminal colorable conspiracy, is subject to indictment as a criminal organization. You people are learned Officers of The Court and you are obligated to make proper criminal report of all subversive activity ,under 18 US Code Section 4 and 2382, and now you have legal notice. Signed:/s/ CC 3/20/21
apply this to property taxes which is repugnate to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as all states of the Union are on "equal footing to the original states. " which goes with your saying "Any statute in conflict with the constitution has no effect and it is as of the statute never existed." and has no effect.
Tell that to all the people in jail/prison for exercising their constitutional right to carry a firearm.
@@kishredbird3599 a right is only a right if it is perceived and defended. Deprivations of rights under color of law is a criminal violation of 18 u.s. code section 242. Not only do officers of the enforcement and judicial branches have strict liability for their unlawful application of criminal statutes, so to do agents for the private organizations known as the Democratic and Republican parties, who abused their discretion and offices to make subversive statutes to the United States Constitution. Conspiracy to interfere in civil rights is a felony under 18 u.s. code section 241. If you report the crime to any conservator of the Peace officer, an enforcement officer or magistrate, and they neglect to prevent the crime, then you can sue them under 42 u.s. code section 1986, action for neglect to prevent, where you will then lay a criminal information before that magistrate. Wash rinse repeat. Chief Magistrate, Attorney General, FBI agent, FBI special agent in charge, United States Attorney, grand jury bailiff, grand jury Foreman,, and finally, the grand jury, where you will request indictments directly from the jury against all of the charged parties as agents for the private organization known as the blue wall of silence.
C.J.S. section 4/7 attorneys:
His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the clients, and wherever the duties to
his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.
Also, anyone who obtains a lawyer is a ward/infant of the court. The lawyer also "practices" law and are a bar member(s). I need to say no more.
@@thelightthatlightsthelifeo6881 those points are correct however deprivations of rights under color of law or official right is a crime. The constitution, the federal code, and the common law are the supreme law. There can be no making application nor practice of law that undermines the intents and purposes of the law nor deprives or infringes the natural rights secured their in and to do so would be a crime. When have you ever heard an attorney tell a prospective client that if they hire them they will be considered incompetent by the court and incapable of filing pleadings in motions on their own behalf? Never. That's when. Under uniform commercial code, that is an unconscionable contract and is unenforceable.
Well done! I am going to school to become a paralegal as we speak and after graduation next year, I plan to go on to get my JD. (God willing.) This video helped me immensely on a paper that is due next week as I was clueless on what case to use for it. It has to be one from my state, which is Kentucky, between the years 1995 and 2015. Thanks to this video, I found it. Something told me to watch it. Thank you very much. Very impressive!
Good luck on your paper.
@@titusjames4912 THANKS SO MUCH!!!
Good for u Jana! I’m in a similar situation as u; finishing my undergrad in May & going to law school immediately after. These videos are an invaluable complement to my college coursework.
@@camillenicole4837 And good for you! I wish you all the luck in the world.
I wanted to this myself but never got help financially. Please follow your dreams to help people for love not money. We need less corrupt materialistic people that do what is right for the people not for the money.
Thank you for elaborating on another aspect of a terrifying situation.
As a Brit I find American constitutional law cases SO interesting! as a historian, I am more drawn to the historical cases (particularly late 1800's - early 1900's) I have this book on my to read list and I cannot wait to get to it!
@nunya9370 is that because the “Judicature Act” was passed?
Where can one find the videos they are talking about in this seminar?
that space below the video with the logo and subscription button? There is a phrase "Show More" click on that and you will see links.
Every one has to keep the constitution book and other basic law books in their house and have to read this will help to the nation for better implementation of laws
with you.
⁰
Yes never get rid of book and rely on the internet. They can change what's on the internet but not what's in every book in the country
The Justice department has become one big extortion racket.
Right
It's the biggest criminal cabal on earth, and these parisitic Barr attorneys that take and oath to the queen bee are parisitic as well
Our entire country has been infiltrated by thieves. They’ve turned every institution there is into a pay for play. The Clintons helped shed the spot light on it all.
@@mitchsinned4457 oh yeah. The rabbit hole goes deep
@@fjb4750 right
Nicely done ! I am 68 years old. Spent 40 years as a LE officer eventually retired as Chief of Police in a major Southern urban city/county. A couple of questions....Does your book discuss the seemingly erroneous position that All decisions by SCOTUS become "The Law of the Land" versus what the actual language of the Constitution ascribes to the SCOTUS powers, keeping in mind the lazy, cowardly, or feckless Law Maker's (Congress) seemingly perpetual abdication of Their responsibilities over a least these last 60 years or so?
Hello, corrupt person!
Of course the reply was deleted
They are coming for us
Slightly low brow, Sir .
In Your Face , Congress is really a Congress of asshats.
This is why common law is the law of the land and constitutional law is the law of the sea (Maritime law)
Constitutional law IS common law…maritime is UCC or statutes.
@@JJMusic78 they usually miss the difference between "US Citizen", a corporate title as opposed to a Citizen of the Several States. Justice John Harlan spoke about this in 1901.
@Plumberpete86 you are wrong😂
Reading and understanding the constitution is very much important to know since the constitution shows a way that how to approach the court when a person feels that he needs justice in any matter
What they do not explain, is how "the law" has been changed several times since the Constitution was written!! For example, the courts are now operating under Admiralty law, but they will call it "statutory law". They don't talk about how Washington DC is actually a separate country to "These United States", the very reason you constantly hear politicians talking about "our democracy", they're talking about Washington DC, NOT "These United States"!
I am late to the party… you guys are rock stars! Bravo.
Great Presentation! 👍🏼😉💯
Good Work fellas..i think its actaully good Argument tho..thanks ! The fundamental rights point was great !
Super cool, thank u for this work.
Anybody know where to get the book? I would love to read it.
After listening to this man for 5 hours, I strongly feel like I knew him - as if we were good friends... But that's just crazy and surely not possible! Something about this man probably just reminds me of someone I know!
Thanks
Enjoyed the video immensely as it gave me quite an insight into how all these issues are thought out. I have no training in the law except for talking to a few lawyers over the years or watching videos like this. I do follow some cases and often disagree with the decisions I hear when reported by the news, especially when they refer back to The Constitution (the "Originalists Argument") as it seems to me that, as a society, we have learned a thing or two over the last 250 or so years causing me to think that, maybe it's time to update our thinking a bit. I should mention that I'm actually Canadian but am watching America to make sure you folks don't go too far off the track. Clearly I'm failing. LOL
Regardless, this video has given me more of an insight into what is going on when judges are considering cases. A layman, like myself, would be prone to look at the case as an individual event which would only require deciding if one side should win or the other. This video has, as I said, given me a bigger picture, that decisions made by judges have much bigger consequences than whether one side is right and other wrong especially where a precendent was already established. I now see a court case as more of a pebble being toss into a pond. Yes, the case might only directly effect two parties; however, the resulting ripples can affect society other cases or society as a whole and, if one case is judged in a certain way, it can and will have effects in other cases in unintended or unpredictable ways and it is part of a judges mission to consider these when rendering that "simple, straightforward decision. This puts things into an entirely different context.
While I'm sure cases in small claims court and the such don't rise to the level of precedent-setting cases, I now see why major cases (right up to the Supreme Court) are not quite as straight forward as I would both think and like and are not necessarily just about right or wrong but more about "how do we want our society to decide issues" when a dispute occurs. Seeing that, I am a bit more comfortable with the back and forth of the court decisions I hear about in the news. There is always back and forth in the interpretation of laws and precident and one has to be vigilant to ensure laws are not interpreted in a way they were not intended. Like my mother used to say, "If you want to find out who's boss around here, just start something. The resent overturning of Roe v. Wade will, no doubt, be a great example of this quote.
Once again, thank you for making this video to help us better understand the thinking from inside the judicial system; it was enlightening. Lastly, as soon as I can get my hands on a copy of the book, I intend to read it so that I can expand my understanding further, so thank you in advance for that.
Who is to decide whether or not what "we" have "learned" is advanced beyond the constitutional understanding? Political grandstanding does not equate to truth, nor does it give the right to decide truth.
Keep Pressing!!!
Thank you.
Property Cases please.
I have a dozen questions on property rights.
Don't be a us citizen and have a trust fund to avoid taxes
You have to know how to navigate many jurisdictions, remaining in honour in your standing . You need to know how to navigate from the Public And the Private. Knowledge
The "why" is always the hard part of any inquiry.
The answer is Usually, loss of Liberty.
@Sage is not going to save you Right. Always save to get the easiest questions answered first. Then apply Occam's Razor, or whatever logical inferences work.
Gjhakdkkauakagfjlallflgslhkofskffhhagffaaakfgaafhajahlakafkfkajflhsfsakfkjahgfhglhlllhgjhjsshkllgfkdkakhakdhlhaahlahhafalhaglkahaffaslshfhfafaafhfaahkfalgsghaaksakhjaafkdfkgajjafhsslkfafafhrafadkjffshakhaahdhaaafsfhsfshaljkhshslgfakfalhafjfahkhhgshshfshkghakhlgllsfgaktjaafjasskjafkalhshsjdaashahhghkagfkdhalhhhdalhhskffhsskhgslaffskfaffllgafhhafjkahsfjasafffkdhljlfsgkksgkkaggfaffalfjsakaahhahgghakaaaafhafhlqhfuwfihlsajfhaftijuafrwiwakaghfslafallefahsfagkgafkfdhahlsffffagakhfahflafkaskkaffatttsqueeueurfeijhrhjwtsfjagagahkshhfjaaajhsktgaeyjqkdkdhfakghaahlkjajlggagglgahfkalslssdjgaglfkgkkgafgfkajslafdkgassfaffatwwiiwjakweqetttteuauetifjkkgtwqojtettreitwieutttqtiqutttwtte
@@ryankorn5911 qeuwgkhkglffgffgsltwtt
@@ryankorn5911 ttktkhskgahfssjashkggakfghksdkagggalaegkagkgywktitutttteiwwuieks
I bet they left out the most important case, post Erie Railroad v Tomkins, which was Perry v United States. "Sovereignty resides in the people", where SCOTUS revealed the remedy to discharge your debt under HJR 192, PL 73-10, codified at 31 USC 5118(d)(2). The source of all your future labor deposit funds is at the US Treasury Department, which you can read about the minor account at 31 CFR 363.6. The people are the beneficiaries and creditors and the United States is the debtor. It's not the other way around like the BAR attornies and courts like to disclaim. Perry v Untied States is shepardized, so they have to accept it and the courts are required to execute your remedy to settle, set off, and discharge your debts against your estate legacy account - see 31 CFR 203, 31 CFR 363.6, and 28 USC 2041. The courts and the United States Attorney General are acting as your common law trustee and alien property custodians for this account. Put them in their place as Trustees and demand their performance or collapse your trust under the merger rule and take over your legacy account as a secured party creditor and holder in due course of all your securities.
The United States is a bankrupt corporation. They should be teaching that. You can always read Fruit From a Poisonous Tree, Melvin Stamper, JD. He reveals it all... it's not perfect, but it's a good place to start your journey for the truth that the courts are desperately trying to conceal.
Reading of constitution is very much important for clear understanding about the government
Looking at all these comments people keep bringing up the Constitution, a constitution is for persons not people, your remedy will not be found in either the US Constitution or the State constitution... if you're given a commercial instrument your answer and status will determine a person or mans outcome. If you walk into a courtroom with no standing, dishonor and as a debtor your success rate goes from about 3% to 0. An Affidavit of Truth can go a long way being that the prosecution will not rebut, and any unrebutted affidavit stands as truth... this stands true even in the defacto courts.
Brilliant Presentation of Canon Law
This sounds absolutely incredible. Thank you gentlemen for this gift to mankind. I can’t wait to check it out.
Gift to mankind?
Great book.
As if the Judicial Branch still gives a rip about the Constitution
@Bill Ding the constructor the mere.thought that three different opinions can be right based on how strictly they look at the constitution is nonsense and only serves to generate thousands of anti cannon decisions that can be used to argue cases.
@Bill Ding the constructor No I am saying that the Supreme courts is encouraging judges to ignore the constitution. It is okay rule rule on breaking a law if it is unconstitutional by saying that you are looking at the lowest level of scrutiny. That is hog wash and they know it.
@@brianhillis3701 commies
Honesty and sincere and truth are and the same which is the place of justice. Truth is a pillar of the justice
Bravo 👏 this is a real service to the people for our constitution!
The most important SCOTUS case was Erie Railroad Co. v Tompkins.
The decision overturned almost a century of civil procedure. This case blended public law with public policy. That’s why a court will not accept case law prior to this case.
No it was Blessing vs Freestone
Would this apply to a child support review hearing?
Everyone has to know about the constitution and basic laws of the country
We had to have constitutional knowledge when I was in 6th grade or we could NOT go to Jr. hi. ..high school 11th grade built on the that or you couldn't graduate at 12th. Geeez I wonder why it was taken out?
The People are The Masters of Both Congress and The Courts A.Lincoln
This entire hour and a half video seems to be an advertisement to go to their website and spend twenty dollars to see what the title to this video promises.
Beautiful
What a great video. Wish I could sit and pick their brains and perspectives for another couple hours. Like not just this battle between states and federalism, but what about all of these Article 1 courts administering colorable commercial contract ish law and presuming everyone thinks we’re in judicial Article 3 courts. But maybe I’m off in my understand if administrative and judicial tribunals. I have so many questions 🙋🏽♂️
25mins and you realize it's just the longest marketing advertisement by lazy boomers ever made. Nothing of substance in this video
Lmao ty for saving me from watching this entire video
Thank you for saving from watching this crap
Nothing of substance to you doesn't mean it's not full of info. That just shows your ignorance. FYI, within that 25 minutes, they show what the title says. What else did you hope to get out of a video that says the top 100 cases we all should know? Btw, AFA "lazy Boomer" if wasn't for us, YOU wouldn't be here. You should be grateful you're here, you had an 89% chance of being aborted. FYI, that dude up here talking is NOT a Boomer,.
Not watching it now. Thanks.
I went to comments at about 26min looking to see if it was worth continuing XD thank you good Sir, agreed
Law is just like a machine. How to apply and when to apply is to be decided by then honourable courts by application of mind
damn. i misheard them at beginning. Didn't expect the paywall at the end. haha. o well.
@@wxsawxsa2941 You should try going outside more
It’ll give your brain some air
That’s as far as context of projects I’m currently interested in… it is not the end of statements.. the escalation of tech in law and influence understanding of large scale process and speed over reality of defacto and dejure while NOT foregoing the safety of what the law provides. But, law in vacuum gives over entrenchment more air for the downside of fire…. The better involves helps.
I just bought this book .. ready to go .. Thank you ACB for being such an inspiration
Us supreme court justices should be united in the practice of justice and law, and the legal system should not be part of or entangled with law anything attached to the word legal is corrupt
They "shouldn't " get entangled in politics! 😊
Any and all judges who don't abide by the rules of the Constitution need to get lost!!
They should be hanged for high treason like they are supposed to.
Exactly
LYNCHED..
@@ladydragon7777 I missed something I guess. Where is that in the Constitution ???
United nations is requested to legal channel to telecast judgments of supreme courts all over the world so that entire legal community in the world will.have.more knowledge' about law concepts.
I think it is preparations for world governance
I took a Supreme Ct. Ruling to a municipality, they tried to get my daughter to baker act me. It was about the driver's license . .They took my license, and ive been inside for 10yrs. I stood for truth, for that.
What?
What are you smoking JoAnn?
@@marcustulliuscicero9512 Nothing, but there is a lot i could not afford after, my particular court ordeal. This is costly. I did not care to try fighting all of the high costs, any longer. Actually there was so much to this, because the laws i began to find, were very interesting. Few really know. 13 years later, im pretty well read, if nothing more. Additionally, finding so much out, most called my crazy. So, i got use to that. It's fine.
@@joannthomases9304 its amazing how you find out just how much power weve lost when you start getting into law. People are living in delusion. Start reading navajo nation law. Its even worse. People are wanting to fight the control and now being labeled far right just for being for the bill of rights. Propaganda is a bitch
They used a copy right law to put you there because it was their property, in their court. Had you filed a claim to your own court and attached their documents as exhibits with the statement that "not only do I believe , your own court agents believe as well" they would have been the ones who paid the price for their crimes.
Can I get this book on audio?
Brown v Board, R.I.P. Dunbar and the quality individuals that you produced.
What was the very first U.S. S.C. decision or case ever heard or docketed???
5 Constitutional Law that are specific to the Child Support legislations, Blessing, Sage, Carrelli
Blessing vs Freestone and Hale vs Henkel
@@jeremyshaffer9200 Your are Correct. Thanks for your support and comments.
I feel that Terry v Ohio took away the 4th amendment by giving law enforcement WAY too much power over the civilian
I agree!
If you are unfamiliar with the Cato Institute, be aware that it has a strong bias against the right for Labor to organize for better deals, but in favor of unlimited rights for the wealthiest to combine their power and influence to suppress labor and consumer rights.
Thank you so much
Preach 💯💯💯
Wow, rights and structure laws which need to make regional health and climate work workable and therefore legal… the rights of individuals and groups in the context of jurisprudence. So amazing.
Common man is to have legal awareness. For this legal awareness tv channels in each country is required.
32:50 is a question I asked myself, and the book’s authors were in fact helpful and reasonable when I commented on the omission of Smith v. Allwright, a 1944 case striking down the all-white primaries of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. Scholars are coming to the conclusion that Smith v. Allwright was just as critical to the Civil Rights movement as Brown v. Board of Education, and in the Rim South and Acadiana it had much more rapid and lasting effects than Brown. The list I will say is generally biased towards recent cases and omits many significant older ones, but again the authors were reasonable when I noted this.
I got hook to Supreme Court at age 30 as intellectual development and since followed their ruling religiously .Also since then learn history of Supreme Court but guess I m rare Xers & Latino follow this institution.
What’s the deal with Lochner in the beginning? Why does he say he thinks it shouldn’t be anti canon?
The title should read “ an hour and a half of reasons why you should buy my book”
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of
None of these “bans” “orders” “mandates” and “restrictions” are Constitutional and everyone upholding such are in violation of their Oath of Office to uphold and sustain the Constitution!
Wake tf up 😑 I watched a video the other day of a group of "cadets" graduating the police academy, who were being sworn in and as they're repeating their oath they were laughing...Almost hysterically at that!!! These lawyers, judges, and police wipe their ass with the constitution daily 🙄 When you hear these people talk about that outdated piece of paper 📜 Know that they just finished taking a huge shit on our rights and wiping their hole with the constitution!!!
@@muhfkajones don't forget the oath they take, they're all liars from the outset.
@@boostedlss6450 Exactly
@@muhfkajones don't consent
Frantz v. Autry, 18 Okla. 561 (Okla. 1907)
"A constitution in the American sense of the word is the written instrument by which the fundamental powers of government are established, limited, and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic." In Vanhorne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 308, the court defines a constitution as follows: "What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established
Maybe write another book specifically covering criminal procedures...its super important...particularly now in this police state that people know their rights, or lack there of
Better yet make it mandatory for police officers to understand your rights.
Was Buck v Bell anti-cannon?
Congress and the Supreme Court have failed to follow the Constitution for so long they are very corrupt and are part of the deep state
YER GOD DAMN RIGHT BROTHER they're ALL IN THE DEEP STATE. We need to throw it all away and start over.
NOW GET MORE SUPER MALE VITALITY PILLS. - Alex Jones
When you said legal theory that means it's BAR attorney law which isn't common law
After all we are not created from government and we the people's who like to know our natural God giving rights that would be a great video
What’s the name of the book?
nice
I simply MUST know; Were these videos & book the reason Josh Blackman kept his hair short for so long? We really deserve an answer Josh.
Me thinks I need to read this book they are hawking.
Basic law is to be explained with pictures since common man may not.understand or may not show interest since it.will.have volumes and volumes of pages
Netflix? I have never gone on Netflix.
Ok, so people ran away from Britian and 'British Temple Bar' is our lawyers? Why? Is there another registry ? No state shall give license for any traffic court, what is this all about. Copyright laws, cannot copyright a name ? Anything? Why a Crown copyright to these people who ran from their control on berth certificates=commerce??? And commercial Religion, like for-given Christian name? In commerce? On berth bond? Religion, on commerce ? So, intelligence cannot, comprehend plain English. So, how does this all apply to, covenants, in bible?
Birth - not berth.
@@colt4667 yes, thank you...i wrote it the other way so they see we all know...
"what did we not include? nothing in civil procedure"
:/ that isn't how english works. was it included or not?
Any one interested in a degree in Jurisprudence should be required to Swear and Attest an Oath before the Bar , that they will NOT partake in , nor affiliate with any Partisan groups which may cause a prejudicial decision , and pursuant to that decision affect any ruling as it pertains to Sentencing and/or Monetary awards or Fines .
With any Oaths and Affirmations for the Bench to include the Continuation , Affirmation , and Affectation of that Oath specifically !
Davis v Healey
Who is John Galt?
Lol.
Rand was an idiot.
Greed is not good.
Yep tons of statutes and tons of codes to alter the rules when it's not in their favor!
You should make sure you are using the original constitution. Not what has been added or taken away from in the last 20 years!
Truth is basis for doing justice
Email according to the Constitution that says the government supposed to pay all of our living expenses then why are they double-dipping and charging us to while the government still paying them. I'm referring to Chili's housing Ridgewood also include mortgages which is also called a secured loan meaning that's already paid for for us. We shouldn't have to borrow our own money and pay interest on it and also we shouldn't have to pay property tax either.
Hurry up already with the info
Terry V Ohio was an unjust finding seeing it seams to be the leading cause of the prison industrial complex system we have today!
You guys did study quantum language?
Every one likes truth .no one likes false or lies to be digested.
Hence overall courts stands for truth and justice for truth
SUPREME COURT HOLDS NO POWER TO WRITE LAWS.
SUPREME COURT HOLDS NO POWER TO ENFORCE LAWS.
SUPREME COURT CAN ONLY OFFER OPINIONS AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW, NOTHING MORE.
The power is not in these things you mentioned but to show ,or make guidelines in which can open eyes of those which are corrupted beyond reasoning.this is a greater act then any other that you mentioned.to change what is considered right...into what is truly right...and within man's understanding to be able to be looked upon and know the difference.
Our Rights are being ignored; right to due process
Ignored
Thank you so much.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Lysander Spooner
Seen film before act side half
1:23:03 this lady has a tomato that she painted stripes on to match her dress and is concentrating her entire being into holding in a camouflaged position. She reminded me of Miles Dyson's final scene from Terminator 2.
EDIT: Actually that guy talking merits some attention as well. Who hasn't told him his hair is ridiculous yet? Someone has to step up. He is genuinely scary. Maybe the woman on the right is actually conjuring a spell to keep him alive as her puppet. Her hand has invisible magic coming out of it.
"Inside" "Outside" Ten Commandments. 🤔😉😏😊
It's funny that you mention UCC since the court has not only refused to allow it , they outright denied it's existence During the "Heather jaraff" trial.
5:00 - This talk is for non lawyers
7:20 - Starts lawyer babel, enough to not watch the rest.
I agree with your timeline but not the conclusion. Since the law is the end product of 'lawyer babel' (good characterization), I find the 7:20> portion far more compelling, to say nothing about informing my understanding of the
I have to assume only a conservative would consider "canon" lawyerspeak. This is simple english lmao
@@RtaincCo Lawyer
The Case on the Ri
The Case on the People's Right too Travel in Motor vehicle's and the Privilege of operating a vehicle for commercial purposes has been totally misleading and used by the Courts to threatened and cohesion of the People to inter into Contracts with out of the Courts true meaning and therefore unconstitutional.
Terry vs Ohio falls into both cannons 🧐
I feel the same way about the Torah and the ten commandments you all should read the book of Exodus and what God did to Egypt and give your opinion about his judgement on pharaoh and his army