I have often thought that regulations written by the unelected beurocrats to be unconstitutional on their face, owing to the fact that "We, the people " didn't vote for these people or the unconstitutional agencies they work for. The EPA comes to mind as an agency that has sweeping regulations and authority over something that started out as a 40 page law known as the clean water and clean air acts in the early 1970's. These agents are even armed now to enforce their rules... King George lll would be proud and a bit gelious were he alive today.

@williamleadbetter9686

Жыл бұрын

Thats why these agencies need to of been created under a charter with an expiration. After which debate can resume as to whether such an agency is still valid at all or need to be shrunk, expanded or disbanded altogether.

- Another excellent and nuanced discussion of American Civics. Please continue....

@anthonynuts9167

Жыл бұрын

Tell him Indians was here first not his kind🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫

@StrategicWealthLLC

Жыл бұрын

@@anthonynuts9167 - It’s “were”, not “was”… given that “Indians” is plural. Also, per your comment, you appear to be an advocate of protected borders, too.

@anthonynuts9167

Жыл бұрын

NO I AM A BLACK MAN YOU CAN NOT YOU CAN NOT TALK ABOUT D OF IN OR THE CON AS IF BLACKS WAS NOT ON THIS EARTH UNLESS YOU ARE SAYING FFFFFF THEM🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫

The idea of an EPA, FDA is a good one I can understand but the Pandora's box is opened when they are put in place and govern the people without our consent.

Thank you Hillsdale for educating a high dropout

Wish I could've experienced some of that "limited government" I was promised during my lifetime, but ...

@seand2328

2 жыл бұрын

We'd love to have you here in the United States

@rkba4923

2 жыл бұрын

@@seand2328 What makes you think I'm not in the U.S.? The U.S. doesn't have limited government!!!

All politicians and most bureaucrats must go. The Constitution, free market and the rule of law is the only way.

Very interesting in the time of Covid that the NIH comes up with the head of that agency not only changing his advice on how to battle it but possibly being implicated in its development, I personally believe that if it's not listed in the Constitution we don't need to fund it but can see both sides

Oh, Prof Arnne most definitely has a good idea of what to do. I am sure.

These government agencies could simply be created under a time sensitive Charter with an expiration date, after which debate can resume as to whether such agencies are still valid at all, need to be shrunk, expanded or disbanded altogether. Instead of given a blank check of unlimited power & existence.

Very interesting.

Half the law is written by the regulatory crowd and the other half is written by the lobbyists. Congress has abandoned its duties.

We should all but ignore the "welfare" clause. The federal government could be stripped completely of its regulatory agencies, and instead take on an advisory role. You mentioned the thalidomide babies. It was not necessary to have an FDA to handle this. A simple government advisory to all citizens, stating the dangers of this chemical, would suffice. This might not have been as feasible in the 60s as it is now. But with the Internet, informing the public about problems and threats would be easy. Moreover, "national" threats do not require federal government intervention. This is a citizenry seeing a problem, and begging for the simplest solution-- let the big government solve it. This is wrong-headed. If the government is forbidden to resolve the problem, then the citizens must come up with a solution on their own. I suspect that companies would grow a conscience if faced with citizen-sponsored solutions. Currently, big companies can do more or less as they please because they pay government to look the other way, which it does. The FDA is a good example, being in cahoots with most of the companies they regulate.

@laggymclaggylag5882

4 жыл бұрын

I agree with the overall sentiment though I disagree with the advisory role to a certain degree. Let's face it, most people couldn't care less if the government advises something and even if they did the outrage and demand for action would last all of a week before most people would forget about the entire thing. An advisory counsel idea does make sense if it would actually lead to innovation or, in some cases, a law (such as breaking up monopolies or restricting a company's ability to censor someone) I invision a council or series of councils with dedicated, nonpartisan, and objective people (similar to 60's NASA) who are sworn to neutrality with access to leading experts in their fields, laboratories, and a plethora or other tools to advise and determine the truth. Though I don't see this happening because a lot of these issues get so unbelievably partisan that nothing will be done in our lifetime, that or they will fall victim to such partisanship and the wrong thing will be done due to popularity or negligence. I see innovation in the private market to be more promising, elon musk and SpaceX being the prime examples of a company doing more than the government with less resources. A list of approved products from a council and labs and companies choosing to only sell approved products would do the same thing as the FDA without regulation and at a lower cost, although I see a similar problem with companies buying off council members unless precautions are taken to ensure neutrality. Again, great idea but it seems impossible at the moment although I will agree that it's better than what we currently have and I see value in it. Concerning national emergencies, I would redefine national emergency to be more restrictive and true emergencies under this definition (like extreme natural disasters like Katrina or border security) should be handled by the government in accordance with the constitution, preferably in conjunction with the states effected, anything else should be handled by the states effected with as little government assistance as possible (other than advising and guidance on some things.)

@HerrFitztastic

3 жыл бұрын

Ignoring the Welfare Clause is daft. It is in the text, and it specifies the purposes to which federally-levied taxes may be directed. You don't ignore it, you derive its true meaning and justify why your interpretation should prevail. Reasonable people may disagree about the meaning of a text but only unreasonable people pretend what exists does not.

6:40

@Hala-ataa

2 жыл бұрын

For real man

@example.com-

2 жыл бұрын

😰

did anyone see that foreshadowing about the pandemic lol

Almost all of the students are looking around for group approval before they answer. Just an observation.

@Unborn-Lives-Matter

4 жыл бұрын

Chris Jolliffe If true (I watched carefully) they are just looking to see if one of the others is wanting to answer, not for approval. Interesting how two people see the same thing in two completely different ways.

@chrisjolliffe7225

4 жыл бұрын

@@Unborn-Lives-Matter It's a 6! No! It's a 9.

@Unborn-Lives-Matter

4 жыл бұрын

Chris Jolliffe Depends on which side the table you're on, eh!

@dorjedriftwood2731

4 жыл бұрын

David A. Dennis what’s more interesting is both sides proport to know peoples minds.

If the "plain reading" of the General Welfare Clause is what the professor says it is, then why would Madison say in response to Hamilton that it's poorly written? Madison's admission is tough to get around. It's akin to instructing someone not to give the clause a "plain reading" but instead to rely on an original intent argument is it not? It seems to be Madison who is trying to get around the stubborn fact that the Constitution doesn't say what he wants it to.

I do not consent to federal regulations and statutes. Only laws passed by Congress are legal. Judicial fiats do not pass muster either. State legislatures need to addresses the issue. Local sheriffs must exert their common law authority.

Well it says along the lines the people that make the laws are not the people that are supposed to be voting for the laws nor do they pass them the people do for them and then they States count them they give them over to our electorals then they're supposed to make sure our vote is count within each state thus percentage more to the bill that's passing the law within that state if it's not a percentage more is the percentage more to the other side is in no to that bill that it's not passed in that state by the people for the people represented by electorals not the lawmakers making the laws voting for him and then passing them that's not how it's supposed to be

I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate you highlighting the Democratic party's video clips during the ads that run on KZread for your constitutional lectures. It lets people know that the Democrats have done the most to back the Constitution and provide the American public with the freedoms afforded by it. Thanks again.

The Government works for the people following its constitution and the rule of laws not the people for the government.

@aaronandelise

6 күн бұрын

That's how it's supposed to work but it doesn't. For example, the 2nd doesn't give us the right to bear arms, that's a God given right, the 2nd states "shall not be infringed". The government has been working against us for a very long time.

Your wrong on cautious.... If the pharma companies wernt protected... They'd be more cautious