Thank you so much! Currently preparing for the Bar exam as a foreign-educated student (UK) and these crash courses are so helpful in getting my head around a completely different judicial system!

I like this series very much. CrashCourse, please continue being the best. 👍🏼

Crash Course Criminology?

@yourfriendlyneighbourhoodh4700

9 жыл бұрын

Oh god yes!

@scorpioninpink

9 жыл бұрын

+James Miller YES!!!

@yananmelo6281

8 жыл бұрын

+James Miller OH YES

@rebelstudios8191

6 жыл бұрын

They should do. Crash course Criminology but who should host it

@christinapatz8510

5 жыл бұрын

Yes please

Great job as always! The 3 amendments passed (plus the 19th) in the wake of the Civil war really shaped the shaped the constitution into what it is today. Before they were passed, complete citizenship was not promised to all, even if it is sometimes just on paper and not in practice.

THANK YOU CRASH COURSE my thoughts finally are woven nicely together

What about the rights of eagles, Craig?!

@TheAfc93r

4 жыл бұрын

I think Craig is violating their rights. =D

I'd love to see a section on the politics end dealing with labor relations. Or even an entire crash course series. With the major nlrb ruling, we could see a major union push in the coming year. You guys woukd be on the forefront of policy education.

I love that bit with the eagle it is the reason I tune in.

@jbonatti7791

6 жыл бұрын

"They're not even endangered anymore."

Crash Course can you please slow down when it comes to you talking ... very hard to understand !!! :)

@jbonatti7791

6 жыл бұрын

THANK YOU!!! They ALL do it. Just speak like you would if teaching a class in a school.

@purplecatbog

6 жыл бұрын

Saheed Watson that’s the type of video it is. If you press the 3 dots at the top and press playback speed you can slow it down

Perhaps the best episode so far.

Keep up the good work Craig. You're doing a great job.

I will remember Midzi.. ehh.. intermediate Scrutiny more because his awesome way of teaching ..!!

Thanks for the episode! It would have been nice if you could have made the distinction between civil rights and civil liberties a bit clearer...

@Lildrummerboy714

8 жыл бұрын

+Surreptor he did in the previous episodes. Civil Liberties are our protections against government as U.S. citizens and Civil Rights are the protections of minority classes against other social classes within government, law and society.

Wow, you brought up the US Concentration Camps. A+ for acknowledging that blind spot, and another + for giving me the hope that, even if it failed, there was a lawsuit. Because that would've been embarrassing. A US citizen not suing someone (especially dat big Bro) over something? That'd be just too weird.

21 more videos 😫 still probably won't be ready for the ap test tomorrow

@chaddawg77

6 жыл бұрын

Did you pass?

@chloef3012

6 жыл бұрын

This is literally me rn

@joybreegaming8781

4 жыл бұрын

Rip that's why I'm starting early... Probably a not to early but still

@lexxieanni

4 жыл бұрын

FAT MOOD

Watching this before a law school exam as a refresher

The Supreme Court allowed all sorts of heinous government policies during the FDR era, though his internment of the Japanese may have been the worst. Once FDR threatened to pack the court w/ his cronies they got scared & began allowing Unconstitutional violations of individual liberties, many of which still stand. It was a dark time

@njmudaliar

9 жыл бұрын

Wickard v. Filburn, when FDR's administration decided it had the right to tell farmers how much they were allowed to produce on their own property, and the court approved. Individual liberties were trampled & the ruling has been justification for many more violations since.

@legoboy468

9 жыл бұрын

Whenever the U.S. or any other country is at war or attacked, most of the time liberties and rights are trampled and the public largely agrees with it, which is sad but something u gotta get used to. I mean look at bush and the patriot act, nsa spying anyone?

Weezy, excellent, really excellent. Question though, do you commute from Chicago down to the studio in Indianapolis? I thought my commute was terrible, but that sounds awful.

thank you.

The hardest part of these cases is that it forces people to think of the other persons rights as if they were their own. Not an easy thing, but something that we must all remember that if you would use the governing bodies to in force your will, we have a duty to ensure that will does not adversely affect or effect your fellow man. Hit the books, and make sure your doing good, not just well.

thank you

Inb4 flame war

I wish this would have mentioned the Freedom of Association which is the most controversial part of the 14th. It's bizarre to me that you can purport to teach about the amendments but fail to mention a huge clashing aspect of the 14th against the 11th. This is the most important part of our constitution; explaining why we let certain amendments override others.

Will there ever be a crash course physics?

Hi Craig!

I will be a paralegal because of this very specific video and only this video!!!! Litigation and adjudication here I cometh!!

The Video was informative to me i understand some but not all i do need to read up a little bit more about some of the key points the presenter touched on Mainly the 14th Amendment it never to late to read up again on brown verses the board of education enjoy the detail account of history.

Why are there dislikes in videos like this? Is there a couple of guys who subscribe to this channel just to dislike all of their videos out of personal spite?

does video have citation

Compelling government intrest

Ole dRumpy and his admin.(clan) need to watch this video.

Everyone gets equal protection except the Finns, damn those Finns...

@SusanWojcucki

9 жыл бұрын

***** Same with The Polish and actual Poland, so I've heard. But as it means people of Finnish or Polish descent, it's not very surprising.

@thisguy7300

9 жыл бұрын

+christopher snedeker You can't even spell Texans right, get out.

@thisguy7300

9 жыл бұрын

+SubscribeToSyndicate Also, there are actually more black people than Irish/Scots in the U.S. Only making up about 11%

@SusanWojcucki

9 жыл бұрын

This guy Well of course, you're comparing the ethnic groups of one small island and a huge continent. Black people are an entire race themselves.

@TheFireflyGrave

8 жыл бұрын

+Dale Gribble There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

What group or organization has the blue flag with the two yellow rectangles (equals sign) at time 7:31?

@alainmagera502

9 жыл бұрын

Andorra

@Xbill117

9 жыл бұрын

Magera Alain thx

"ability to pass laws that favor them" is not a justification for discrimination based or race or ethnicity - THE ABILITY TO ADVOCATE to our fellow citizens to change the laws to favor the minority is the correct path...

Like. Idk 5th?

read the text of the 14th amendment.

could someone summarize this for me please !

Least restrictive means of achieving goverment interest

I didn't know it - but checking one's criminal record or seeing that they are employed for long periods isn't an indication that the person isn't a rapist or a domestic assailant. Judges seal the records so they become invisible. The rapist or assailant, often serial, is allowed to deny the domestic assault. Without crime judges and attorneys can't make money. They necessarily release criminals, encouraging them to go to the next level- perhaps a juicy murder case? They then fill jails with innocent people. They try to get an arrest with each family or probate case. They often use partially recorded contempt of court hearings. The party doesn't have to be in violation of any law. The rulings are fabricated. Judge Angela Arkin has issued a visibly fabricated arrest warrant while jurisdiction was in Appeals Court on 6/28/15. She claimed there was a hearing I didn't attend, but the warrant preceded the hearing - which has no record of being scheduled. Moreover, District Court should not have touched the case due to jurisdiction being with appeals. Now I know that my husband is allowed to deny multiple assaults. If I had known timely I would not have married him. I would have also created timely chain letters with the police report and my x-rays. I only sent those to a few people and didn't request that they forward them. Judges in Colorado delete the DNA samples of rapists before declaring them innocent. They can incarcerate any sheriff of deputy who stands in their money making way. Attorney is the second favorite occupation for sociopaths; surgeon is the second favorite occupation for psychopaths. Attorneys, judges and bankers are unregulated - together they can operate a dictatorship. They are already at it - but occasionally being polite about it. They have not yet replaced all of the police forces with KKK - but are working hard at it. Dictatorships exist elsewhere = Russia, China, Korea - and that's how they operate. Please write congress to disassemble the judicial branch. Please vote NO to Judge Angela Arkin in 2016.

@sebimoe

7 жыл бұрын

Semi-interesting conjecture, but have you got anything to back it up, or the scale of it?

If liberties exist in a state of "act or acted upon" will we ever reach a static state of liberty? It would seem that, in addition to happiness, liberty is to remain pursuit.

@seigeengine

9 жыл бұрын

+coconutologist You can think of oppression as the lower energy state. It takes effort to maintain liberty, as things want to fall into a state of oppression.

G'day..., Yay Team ! ;-p Ciao !

Protection...for the rich and powerful

@joybreegaming8781

4 жыл бұрын

Lol

2:09 TMNT reference

Why do you keep on hitting your desk eagle off your desk!?What did he do to you?KAAAAAAW

@joybreegaming8781

4 жыл бұрын

Ca caww

Hi, I really like your videos. But could you PLEASE try to speak slowly, because I am french and it is going to fast for me. Thank you ;)

@gamingperson99

4 жыл бұрын

dude English is my first language and i feel like hes talking to fast lol

Funny how he didn't once mention how civil liberties can be violated when the courts apply strict or intermediary scrutiny to private interactions.

Yes! The 14th Amendment is the shit!

@Lildrummerboy714

8 жыл бұрын

+Adam Borison Personally, I like the 1st better ;)

@austin1470

7 жыл бұрын

1st amendment is guaranteed to apply to your state thanks to the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states due to the Citizenship Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause.

Question...Watching Sister Wives right now, so are polygamist rights being infringed on by the states and federal government? @CrashCourse

If "we" (People in the comments) were to write an amendment to the constitution what would it be?

@joybreegaming8781

4 жыл бұрын

Establising anarchy

literacy tests for voting and drivers license was a jim crow law

Rip eagle

cool

@Bram06

9 жыл бұрын

+Pancakes warm

I'm watching this for my gov class, and it's really weird. I keep expecting a clone to stumble in, or banjo face, or a terrible pun to be made. But Craig is being a (mostly) serious. It's...weird.

5:00 does this imply that the majority of laws passed would be deemed unconstitutional if the supreme court examined them further? Should we really be passing that many unconstitutional laws?

@thesquire9966

9 жыл бұрын

Did not mean supreme court, phone won't let me edit my comment though, but the question still stands.

@Mr_Wallet

9 жыл бұрын

+The Squire "Scrutiny" in this case refers to the level of bias the court will apply in its judgement, and I don't mean "bias" in a negative way. Pretend you're helping a friend make a video for KZread and you're going to be a supporting actor. Your friend hands you an envelope and says "open this." You ask what's in it and they say "it's empty, you just need to be in the background and look like you're doing something during the scene." No big deal, right? Suppose your friend hands you a revolver and says "shoot yourself in the head, make sure to react when the hammer clicks." You ask if it's a real gun and if it's loaded and your friend reassures you that it's an unloaded prop gun. Still, you don't know a lot about guns and it looks pretty real. Do you just go ahead and shoot yourself in the head? In the first case you'd probably be fine with just opening the envelope, but you might want to examine the gun yourself before filming starts, even if you trust your friend. It's the same idea with laws; some are far more likely to have far more powerful negative consequences (intentional _or_ unintentional) based on how they're written, regardless of the justification. In these situations it's better for the court to strike down a law and make the legislation write a new one, rather than risk letting through a law that could cause unfair problems for a protected group. So technically, yes, there's a difference of standards going on, but it's based on pragmatism. Instead of thinking of it as allowing unconstitutional laws, you could just as easily argue that it's actually _not_ allowing _potentially constitutional_ ones.

@seigeengine

9 жыл бұрын

+The Squire No, it implies that the majority of laws deemed to warrant strict scrutiny will end up being deemed unconstitutional.

@travismichael024

7 жыл бұрын

Before the Supreme Court decided to review a case, there has to be a controversy. If the court determines that it can hear the case, then the court would look to the law to determine if the law targets a protected class of citizens. To determine if a group a citizens are a protected class, the court will look to history. For example, women, although not a minority, can be considered a protected class because of the history of discrimination against them. Once the court determines that the law targets a protected class, it determines the level of scrutiny to apply. If the case involves a protected class, a fundamental right, or places an undue burden on a group, then strict scrutiny will apply. The government then has to show that the law furthers a compelling governmental interest and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving the state's interest. However, if the case does not involve a protected class, a fundamental liberty, or places an undue burden on a group, then the law will be reviewed under the rational basis test. As long as the government can show that it has a rational basis for passing this law it will be upheld. The Equal Protection Clause is only one of a number of ways in which a law may be declared constitutional or not.

"The reasoning wasn't legal or historical"... see Mendez v. Westminster, a desegregation case in California in 1947.

hi

hey! It's the weezy waiter guy

🤔👍

#murrica

Episode on the 2nd Amendment coming soon? Gotta bare those bear arms

@Penminfire

8 жыл бұрын

What about the right to arm bears?

@MaryLopez-bv7ks

7 жыл бұрын

+Penmin _ If someone got charged for animal abuse after cutting off a bear's arm.. pleads the 2nd amendment . (:

Punch

How are women a minority?

@robertadorrough3852

9 жыл бұрын

+Adrian Duran The sex ratio at birth is 107 boys to 100 girls, in the world population there are 1.01 males to 1.0 females.

@xtranormal23

9 жыл бұрын

+Robert A Dorrough World population is entirely irrelevant in the context of the U.S. where women are estimated to make up 158.6 million and men are only 151.4 million.

@Crystalvampire66

9 жыл бұрын

+Adrian Duran It may something to do with how they were historically treated as a minority. Though you're right, by the numbers women are not a minority

@bryanwan6169

9 жыл бұрын

*estimated*

@KAPTAINmORGANnWo4eva

9 жыл бұрын

+Adrian Duran In certain sociological contexts, people call whatever "class" they're deeming as the victimized class the "minority". For example, people referred to the Afrikaners as the majority and the black Africans as the minority in apartheid South Africa even though the Afrikaners were and still are a statistically tiny minority.

Maybe go slower in future videos? Everything was like one continuous run-on sentence :/.

Eagle

I don't see any comments for some reason.

It's more complicated than this.....

poor eagle

Can it apply to felons

You seem to have merged Due Process with Equal Protection.

equal protection? is that when killing a cop is punished as a higher crime than killing a person, but when cops kill people, they get immunity?

tell me why we're paying different tax when we're getting same protection.....supposedly

talks way too fast to understand.

@jbonatti7791

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I wish all the CC hosts would just speak like humans, not like there's a time limit on YT.

Not first

When I was in the navy we used to always bring up the subject of jousting and prejudice, I cant imagine any buddy besides white people jousting.

Hilton High School hoping for a shout out to Mr. Ralyea's Global Studies classes in Hilton NY

How does equal protection apply to taxes?

@SUFHolbek

9 жыл бұрын

+Ryan Davidson (LGC GHR3) It doesn't

@ghr1990

9 жыл бұрын

So, you can tax different groups differently and it does not violate equal protection? Like one can tax African-Americans and Asian-Americans at different rates?

@seigeengine

9 жыл бұрын

+Ryan Davidson (LGC GHR3) Nice trap.

@SusanWojcucki

9 жыл бұрын

Technically, taxes do discriminate against those who are "monetarily gifted" which is a minority

@cj-seejay-cj-seejay

9 жыл бұрын

+Ryan Davidson Tax law is like any other kind of law. You can't tax one race differently than another. That would clearly violate the 14th Amendment, because race is considered a suspect class and there's no way that kind of taxation policy would be upheld under strict scrutiny.

What's confusing and not at all clear from this video is where did these procedures that the Supreme Court appears to follow come from and are they mandatory (could a future court just ignore them). Levels of scrutiny and protected classes--where did these concepts come from? They're not directly in the Constitution nor are they in laws passed by Congress. And those 5 steps that the Supreme Court goes through when applying the highest levels of scrutiny. Who created them? Could they be altered (for instance could new steps be added or some dropped). How would this happen? Does anything compel their use? Why does the Supreme Court follow them? Could future courts just say, to hell with all this, let's just forget about protected classes and levels of scrutiny and the 5-steps procedure?

@cj-seejay-cj-seejay

9 жыл бұрын

+BDoug The Court created the levels of scrutiny. Courts create these kinds of rules, tests, classifications, procedures, mechanisms, etc., all the time. ALL the time. They just make up the rule, explain it in the Court opinion, and voila-- it's legal doctrine now. People honestly go around thinking that "judges shouldn't make the law" or whatever, but they don't understand how the common law system works. Judges make law all the time, and our whole system of government pretty much depends on it. Where do courts some up with these types of rules? Well, honestly, they do kind of pull it out of their butts. But they try to come up with something that is logical, that can be easily applied by courts in the future, that will result in good legal outcomes, that adheres to the spirit or ideals of the Constitution/statute, and that won't unnecessarily open the "floodgates" for tons of other litigation. But yeah, they make it up as they go. Courts in the U.S. are hierarchical. If the Supreme Court makes up a rule, the lower courts should generally apply it in similar cases. If a lower court makes up a rule, the higher courts can choose to adopt it, or they can reject it in favor of something else. The Supreme Court can change the rules it has made in the past, or it can slowly shift away from an old rule without expressly rejecting it. Hope that helps.

@whiteflagstoo

8 жыл бұрын

+BDoug It might make more sense if you figure that the court system needs to interpret the law, so procedures and tests are created to make rulings fairer through explanation and consistent interpretation of law through ease of application. Procedures and tests can be bad - such as the Miller test for obscenity - but that comes from the procedure or test overlooking details a more thorough procedure or test wouldn't, usually. The Miller test for instance is largely "I know obscenity when I see it" All the more reason to pay attention to the government I suppose, in order to speak out and demand better standards for rulings.

The thing I hate about crash course, they speak a little too fast. I can't even understand what he is saying. Thanks for giving me a 0% on my 27 Amendments Test

@torikellyreeves

4 жыл бұрын

I passed my test with a B and that's with talking fast

Why not make a law making discrimination illegal?

@michaeltariga5285

8 жыл бұрын

+DoggySpew Because that would be thought policing which step on the liberty of free speech and free thinking. If you are going to ask me everyone has their own discrimination on something, like how I discriminate on those goddamn goose's who always lay eggs on my lawn. Discrimination is fine as long as one just talks about his/her bias because..... 1. You know that this person is discriminating on one group/person/area/waterfowl/etc 2. You can easily rebuke their argument by showing to them facts on why they are being bias. If not that you can go on debate the issue with them and perhaps the two of you will learn something in the end. Discrimination however will be a totally bad thing if one acts on his discrimination through morally questionable or law breaking actions, thats why those lynch mobs back then are totally not cool, I mean man those are some fucked up shit.

@LetsTakeWalk

8 жыл бұрын

+Mighty Roogna Discrimination has no place as "free speech", because it is speech that takes liberty away. Countries with anti-discrimination laws are more free, because bigots have a lesser place. Complete free speech (which even the USA doesn't have) is not desirable, because that would also allow calls for violence or acts of discrimination. In the US, calls for violence are not protected under free speech, but calls for discrimination is. This led to the continuation of extremists groups like the KKK, where in other countries they would be banned. Anti discrimination laws would outlaw these groups. To say that outlawing certain groups because of their speech is discrimination in itself, but that has as much strength as an argument as arguing that taking away the stolen property of a thief constitutes to theft itself.

@travismichael024

7 жыл бұрын

There are laws like the Civil Rights Act, Employment Discrimination, and Americans with Disabilities Act that help to prevent discrimination in certain areas.

@joshmaeder8897

6 жыл бұрын

That is a very naive solution. Sure you can tell individuals they can not hire/fire individuals based on race. But if a racist employer can fire someone based on race, then he will come up with other reasons to fire the person, disguised as non racial.

Clearly the supremacy clause is the most important part of the Constitution. Otherwise nothing else in it would matter.

Slow down, whoadie

@torikellyreeves

4 жыл бұрын

I can understand just fine even if its too fast . try turning on the captions and see if that will help

Leave the eagle alone!!!!🤦‍♂️

How did this come into play with the 2000 election? Why did the Supreme Court impose this law for counting Flordia votes?

@travismichael024

7 жыл бұрын

The right to vote is a fundamental right to all citizens. The Gore campaign sought to have votes considered undervotes, recounted for only four counties whereas the Bush campaign sought to stop the recount altogether. Since everyone has a right to have their vote count and the Florida Supreme Court could not establish sufficient rules to ensure that every vote was counted using the same standards, the Supreme Court held that it violates the Equal Protection Clause. Every citizen of the state of Florida should have their votes counted using the same standard rules across the state rather than having one set of rules to determine the voter's intent in one county and another set of rules in a different county.

If the second amendment guarantees a right to bear arms (and to buy them, presumably), and the fourteenth amendment says that "all persons born...in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside...no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights...of citizens of the United States...", isn't it technically unconstitutional for there to be an age requirement for purchasing a gun? If someone under 21 can't purchase a handgun and someone under 18 can't purchase a long gun, aren't their rights as citizens of the United States being abridged? Regardless of what the courts have said, I believe that the right to bear arms (just like the right to free speech) applies to all citizens, regardless of age.

@jalynbanks1867

7 жыл бұрын

Cj Rogan I see you're point in supporting the 2nd amendment but I'm not sure I see your point in an age limit being unconstitutional. The way you phrased this basically is saying that an age limit of any sort on anything is in a sense unconstitutional. I'm sure you know that's not the case. Also the 2nd amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" which means that literal organized militia groups formed to protect the security and freedom of a state should have the right to stockpile arms. I support the 2nd amendment, and I feel that Americans should be able to possess a handgun if they receive some form of basic training and pass a background check. I also feel that anyone in a rural area should have the right to possess a hunting rifle. Even as a democratic I support the idea that Americans should have the right to choose to protect themselves with certain fire arms, I think the government should draft up a modified version of the 2nd amendment that makes gun rights more clear.

@cjr4286

7 жыл бұрын

Jalyn Banks Well it's actually very simple. The Bill of Rights garuntees "the people" (every American, as is necessary for a citizen-militia) the right to be armed. The fourteenth amendment garuntees that no state can group people into different categories and say that some people don't get certain rights because of a preexisting condition such as race. The only way a right from the Bill of Rights can be taken away from someone is if they are punished for committing a crime after being convicted justly, according to the 14th. My point is that because of the 14th amendment, the government can't group off young people and tell them that they don't enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. I am aware of the fact that many people don't believe the second amendment garuntees a right to bear arms, but I for one do! If I am right about that, then the right to bear arms applies to all Americans, regardless of age, just like the right to free speech (1st amendment) or the right to a trial by jury.

@robertjarman3703

6 жыл бұрын

I don't know where the age really should be. Biologically our prefrontal cortexes (the judgement part of the brain, although mainly in regards to quick judgements not longer terms of thinking) don't mature until around 25. But because no two brains are alike, we have things called tests, of course, we have gun licenses, driving licenses, even barbers' licenses. If we have tests to be able to show someone that you are safe to use a gun, should age really matter? And tests can be based on some kind of medical characteristic or administered by a nurse or doctor or psychoanalysis, so you could analyze a brain too if you wanted to as part of a gun test.

Equal Protection: Ask black people if it actually works...

@Hates-handle

9 жыл бұрын

racist. the government hates everyone equally.

@Hates-handle

9 жыл бұрын

racist. the government hates everyone equally.

@easysnake205

9 жыл бұрын

+Colonel Graff not perfectly but sometimes and far better than it used to and getting better.

@IroniqEleganceX

8 жыл бұрын

+Colonel Graff It does. I very much like going to a minority-black school without being arrested or beaten (well, I enjoy the not-being-arrested-or-beaten part). It's not perfect, but honestly, getting it to be that way is more psychological territory than legal.

I can't think of any concept the Founders would have found more abhorrent than the concept of 'protected classes'

@iruparatso

9 жыл бұрын

+Dan Guiana They would have found far more abhorrent the idea of a black woman voting. That's why we don't base our understanding of civil rights on the opinions of 18th century slave owners.

@danielfinkelstein4978

9 жыл бұрын

well, then why the hell make any pretenses? Why not wipe your ass with the constitution, since it was written by people you clearly consider yourself superior to?

jk jk ur very cool

VOTE BLUE 2018!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Under 301 club

@spicyboithedisappointment4937

9 жыл бұрын

what tear

FIRST

@AMCTKate

9 жыл бұрын

Would you like a cookie 😒🍪

@jasonchung0_0

9 жыл бұрын

+A.M.C.T Kate sure

@AMCTKate

9 жыл бұрын

jason c​😂👏 Normally I wouldn't do that but I wanted to see your/other peoples reaction. That's a pretty chill response 

Ummm slow down please.

My rights as a victim of domestic violence were violated. Why is it so difficult to find an attorney ? And what can I do to get policy changed and get all involved held accountable for their decisions that pertained to my life durin g this process of me receiving what I'm entitled to ?

let us not forget the gender minority. so ideally, the clause should read: the religious,... the national,... the ethnical,... and the gender minorities.

@KKTplm

9 жыл бұрын

+Collin Bruce (OKMC) what the fuck are you talking about

@dagamerking

9 жыл бұрын

herr kaze gender equality much?

@Blank8559

9 жыл бұрын

+Collin Bruce (OKMC) men and women are roughly 50%. How could either be a minority?

@dagamerking

9 жыл бұрын

Quwertie im talking about gender (LGBT), not sexual (M&F) orientation... im not going to go into specifics, but sexual orientation is based upon your reproductive organs, and gender is who your attracted to. BTW its more of a 55 Male/45 Female Pop at least in america

Undue burdun

take that trump

@jbonatti7791

6 жыл бұрын

trump can take a lot more, like a brain, conscious, empathy, and a punch in his vagina neck.

Crash Course British History?

Separate but equal = Boys and Girls schools Separate but equal = Religious schools Separate but equal = Private schools

@cassieearle9196

6 жыл бұрын

erzan I'm sorry are you advocating for segregation?

@joshmaeder8897

6 жыл бұрын

The fourteenth amendment applies to the actions of governments (state), not the actions of private individuals, or private/ religious schools.

Hi would you considerate yourself a liberal, Moderate or conservative?

Anyone else here for Mr Rudy’s hw assignment😂😂😭

You shouldn't talk so damn fast and you would be more understandable.. good info tho

@captainbirch9835

4 жыл бұрын

I don't want to sound rude, but if he's talking too fast for you, you can slow the video down

@torikellyreeves

4 жыл бұрын

@@captainbirch9835 Same