Learning The Constitution | Legal Amendments 4th through 8th | Untold History Channel

➡ Untold History Channel has been sick with bronchitis, yet he discusses the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He emphasizes that these documents were intended to limit the federal government’s power and protect individual rights. He argues that the original intent of the founders has been ignored, leading to a problem of federal supremacy. He also criticizes the lack of education about these principles in public schools.

➡ This text talks about how local and federal governments have different roles. Local governments handle things like traffic rules, while the federal government deals with bigger issues like defense and foreign relations. It also discusses how our rights are not guaranteed by the Constitution, but by us standing up for them. Lastly, it mentions how some people view liberty as dangerous because they’ve been convinced they can’t succeed without government help.

➡ The text discusses the importance of understanding our rights as given by the constitution. It emphasizes that these rights are local and not controlled by the federal government. It also explains the role of state constitutions and the importance of due process, even for those accused of serious crimes. Lastly, it touches on the concept of double jeopardy and the right to remain silent.

➡ This text talks about the concept of “just compensation” when the government needs to use private property for public use. It means that if the government wants to use your property, they have to pay you what you think is fair. If they can’t, they’re not supposed to take your property. However, sometimes the government finds ways around this, like declaring the property a conservation area, which lowers its value. The text also discusses how the interpretation of laws can be manipulated, leading to societal chaos.

➡ This text talks about the right to a quick and open trial, a principle that was established due to the unfair practices under British rule. It explains that the accused should have a fair trial, be informed about the charges against them, and have the chance to confront their accusers. It also discusses the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, which is a key part of our justice system. The text emphasizes that these rights are important to protect individuals from unfair treatment and to ensure justice is served.

➡ The British used to search colonists’ homes, find illegal goods, and put them on trial. However, the colonists often declared the accused innocent, which frustrated the British. So, they removed the jury system and either sent people to Britain for trial or held “admiralty courts” with British judges. This experience influenced the founding fathers to emphasize the importance of a jury of peers in the constitution to prevent tyranny.

Welcome to the untold History Channel, and it is time to learn about the constitution as Doug medicines himself up. Yeah, bronchitis. I got myself an inhaler. So, yeah, I actually canceled my life classes today. Yesterday was not on the air Sunday night or Saturday because of bronchitis. So this is the first time I’m actually making an appearance anywhere in, like, four or five days. That’s what I heard.

That’s what I heard. Yeah. Are you there? Yeah, I’m here. Shoot. Hold on. Can you hear me? I can hear you. Yes, but you can’t hear me, right? All right, well, while he’s trying to figure this out, because I’m guessing it’s him. Itch you can’t hear or that he can’t hear us, but I can. Whatever, but, yeah. And I had a bout with bronchitis. Started coming down with something on Thursday.

By Friday, I was feeling a little miserable. By Saturday, I was horribly miserable. So let me know in the chat room. Can you hear me? Okay, that’s the question. There I am here. Okay, well, go ahead. Go ahead and go with the class because I can’t hear anything you’re saying. Oh, really? I can’t hear a thing yet. That means I can say whatever I want about my end.

But anyway, all right, so just give me a thumbs up in the chat room that you can hear me. Okay. And then I know that I’m okay. It’s on his end. But anyway, so back to what I was saying. I was having a good evening, and Safira says, all good, but anyway, so bronchitis by Sunday. Doctor says, stop doing all the stuff you’re doing and take some rest, and here’s some medicine and inhaler and all sort of stuff.

And so I am coming off of about with bronchitis. I’m feeling much better, but I probably can still sound a little nasally, but in much better shape. So it’s always fun when something hits you, right? What’s amazing to me is my wife doesn’t get sick. I get nailed with something. I’m down for the count, and she just keeps on trucking along. The grandkids in the house get sick.

My son gets sick. I’m sick. She just trucks on. It’s like the germs are afraid of her. It’s an amazing thing. She never gets sick. She just kind of gives them a dirty look. They run away, and then she moves on with her life while the rest of us scramble to get better. But anyway, it’s good to see you. Enjoy doing this every week, and I wanted to make sure I was at least here.

So once again, I had to cancel my Monday night, my Tuesday morning constitution classes, plus I also teach us history to middle schoolers and high schoolers on Mondays and Wednesdays. So Monday I sent some schoolwork, and the principal of the school kind of ran the class for me with my material. So I’ll be back tomorrow. But anyway, so it is what it is, what it is. But I am feeling better.

So we have been going through the constitution. We are in the Bill of Rights. And we had a lot of discussion about this idea of the incorporation of the Bill of rights to the states. And this is a very controversial way of looking at it. The original intent has been rejected by the judicial, by the political class. I mean, the original intent, what was originally intended, what the founders wanted, and what the congressional testimonies of the Congress during the 14th Amendment discussions, rejected.

Now, this has become a part of the Constitution, this idea that it’s the federal government’s job to force the states to police the states and force the states to behave. We had a war between the states that created a situation where the federal government decided they had to punish the states for daring to secede and daring to not abide by federal control. And since then, we have had this problem of federal supremacy, regardless of authority, and a federal government that believes that it can impose its will on the states, including regarding our rights.

And I want to kind of go over this again just to kind of set the stage for what we’re going to talk about today, because it’s funny. So, I’m sorry. I had. I had to take a look at the chat room because one of the comments kind of cracked me up. Wait a gosh darn minute. Says the real special Ed. You’re telling me elementary school students can understand the constitution, but our politicians can’t? No way.

Yeah, well, here’s the thing. I think they do understand. I think they know what the original intent is. But see, it stands in the way of what they want to do, of the narrative of the plan to turn this country into something that was never intended to be. So that answers that. And they don’t teach this stuff in the public schools. They don’t teach my version. I shouldn’t call it my version.

My version is the founder’s version. I studied them. I’m just relaying to you what they said. I hate it when people say, well, it’s your interpretation. No, it’s actually Thomas Jefferson’s interpretation and Madison’s interpretation, Coolidge’s interpretation, Harding’s interpretation. I just have schooled on it a very long time and realized that the left has been boiling parts of it into nothingness on purpose, and we got to get back to it.

But they don’t teach the original intent. They don’t teach the idea that the states have sovereignty and that there is a certain amount of state rights and there’s a certain amount of autonomy on local issues and that there’s a limitation on federal powers. And if they’re not expressly numerated those powers, I mean, in the Constitution, they’re not authorized. They don’t teach that because that would overthrow their power.

They don’t want to be overthrown, so they’re not going to teach it because if we knew the truth, we could overthrow them, so they won’t teach it. So where I teach at, the school I teach at is actually like a private school, but on paper it’s a home school. The parents basically contract the school to teach their kids, but the parents are still in charge of the paperwork that you would see homeschoolers do, but they bring us in to do the teaching.

I’ve got a smaller classroom. I don’t have 40 kids. I’ve got, between the two classes, maybe close to just under a dozen kids. Number one, because classroom size, being small, is better, and number two, because most parents just can’t afford to give their kids that kind of education. But anyway, so we’ve got this foundation. So when I read these amendments, let’s understand something. The language is for the federal government.

It’s pointed at the federal government, but the principles there are across the board because they are our rights. Our rights are natural rights, whether they’re in the constitution, they’re in a state constitution, or whether they’re not written down at all, they’re still your rights. They exist as your rights, and no constitution gives you your rights or denies your rights or anything like that. Your rights come from God, natural rights.

So please don’t misunderstand me when I say, well, this applies to the federal government. What I’m saying is the language used here in particular was for the federal government because the worry was by creating a central government, it was going to target the rights of individuals, and the rights of the individuals was none of the federal government’s business. The federal government was created to handle external issues, internal issues.

Rep. The states and our rights are part of an internal deal here. But for the most part, our rights are also none of the local government’s business. However, in some cases, sometimes for the purpose of an orderly society, laws need to be made either directly or indirectly relating to our rights, and therefore it is our responsibility as the governed to give our consent, to pick the right representatives and to ensure that those laws don’t betray our rights beyond what we want them to.

For example, and some of you have heard me use this example before, but I think it’s important. There is a street light probably not very far from where you’re at. One day, long ago, there was no signal light there. That intersection may have been at one time a crossing of two dirt roads. At one time, long ago perhaps, and at that time a car would go through the intersection.

You have the right to pursue going through that intersection. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You don’t have a right to be happy. You have a right to pursue it. You don’t have a right to just, that’s my right. But you have a right to pursue it. And there is an orderly fashion is supposed to be done. You’re not supposed to interfere with other people’s rights in the process.

There’s all kinds of different factors that are involved. So you go through the intersection, eventually that intersection becomes busy. More people want to go through that intersection, you still have the right to go through the intersection. But now, because more people want to go through that intersection, going through it in an orderly fashion is becoming difficult. And sometimes people crash into each other. So our right to go through that intersection is becoming more difficult to manage.

So we ask government to make a law regarding that. Right now, they’re not going to make a law to take away the right. Well, I’ll sit. You guys can’t get along going through the intersection. You just can’t go through the intersection. No, a law needs to be made, a necessary law, not unnecessary laws, but just the necessary ones that would make it so that people can go through that intersection in an orderly fashion without hitting each other.

We’ll set up some rules. We might put up a stop sign. Maybe eventually we’ll put a signal light. And everybody knows the rules. Red means stop, green means go. Yellow means floor it unless you’re far enough away and you have time to stop. Right? And that is a local law regarding a right now, the federal government’s job has nothing to do with intersections. The federal government’s job is the union to have a fighting force to defend the union, to make sure that persons are not entering the union who mean us harm, such as an invasion or illegal immigration, to secure that border.

That federal government may handle foreign relations, trade, commerce with other countries, agreements over different things, treaties when it comes to turf, land, water usage, resources, trade, whatever. And then also that federal government’s job may also, whenever the need arises, act as a mediator when it comes to disputes between individuals in the country. And it crosses state lines, because if a dispute is within a state, the state courts can handle it.

But when a dispute crosses state lines, well, now you’ve got two courts that could show favor towards a particular person because it’s from their state. So therefore, you need a neutral mediator. So the federal government’s job would then be to mediate disputes that cross the state lines. But their job doesn’t include whether or not a stop sign is put up at a dirt road intersection or a paved intersection or a stoplight goes in.

Because it’s none of their business. Their job does not include those domestic issues. That domestic issue on that intersection is regarding our rights, on whether or not we can go through that intersection and how we get along as a society in that area, in that region, in that place. That’s between us and our local government. And if our local government needs to make a law regarding that right, then the local government can.

But the federal government’s got no business making a law regarding that right, because our rights are none of their business. And the reason why I say all this, I want you to understand, when I talk about. Because this became a couple of episodes ago, remember, it was a commenter that was very upset about when I was talking about the problem within the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states.

And I’ve been really trying to think about how to explain this, because we have been convinced that our rights are a holy thing, and they are. But sometimes laws need to be made regarding those rights, and the federal government has no business whatsoever making any laws regarding our rights. That’s the reason why the first amendment begins, Congress shall make no law. The second amendment ends shall not be infringed.

Third amendment begins, no soldier shall, Fourth amendment shall not be violated, and so on and so forth, because it’s none of the federal government’s business. But when I say that the Bill of rights doesn’t apply to states, everybody thinks, oh, well, you’re just saying the states can stop all of our rights. No, our rights are a local issue. So sometimes local laws need to be made regarding our rights.

But it’s our responsibility to make sure that local government, be it state, county, municipal, doesn’t go too far. And see, our problem is we’ve been so convinced that our rights are guaranteed by the constitution. Well, why do we need to think about it? Why do we need to fight for them? They’re guaranteed. And that’s very dangerous language. I hate that language. And I hear it from conservative commentators.

So the constitution guarantees those rights. No, it doesn’t. Constitution guarantees nothing. This is ink and paper. Ink and paper. Don’t fight. It doesn’t stand up and do anything. It’s ink and paper. It’s wonderful ink and paper. It says wonderful things. It establishes a wonderful system. But unless we are standing behind it, we are defending it and we are understanding it in the first place, it does nothing. And we have an american society who has no clue what I’m talking about that doesn’t even understand the basic foundation of what liberty even is, and in fact, sees liberty as something dangerous.

I had a conversation with a pastor, I think I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears mentioned again because it’s a good point. And we hear these stories over and over. Matter of fact, now I’m thinking about it. Adam Carolla even talks about this in no safe spaces, how as a child, and he’s, we got, if you got a job, we could have more things. We could have this, we could have that.

And she says, yeah, but I’d lose my welfare. Why push harder if you’re going to lose your program and see, that’s what the left is all about, government programs. You don’t have to lift a finger. We’ll take care of you and we’ll all treat you equally. So I’m talking to a pastor from Cleveland, black pastor named Donovan Larkin, and fantastic individual. Absolutely love the man. He’s doing great work out there in the inner city, there in Cleveland.

And one of the things that he does is he has this ranch that’s outside the city, and he takes these inner city kids to this ranch during the summer and they work the ranch, man. They got to feed the animals and they got to do the different work. And it’s to teach them that you’re supposed to take care of yourself. There is a personal reward for hard work.

You feel good about yourself when you accomplish something, all of that stuff. And so at the time I was talking to him and this was in about 2017, 2018, something like that. It was shortly after Trump had taken office. And he and I had that in common. We liked President Trump. And he was visiting from Cleveland to San Diego. And I live in Riverside County. I was down in San Diego and we were meeting at the home of a mutual friend who runs a organization down here in Southern California called Salton Light Council, Dran Reese.

And so it’s at her home. And so Pastor Larkin and I are talking, and I’m explaining to him how I was working at the time or trying to establish at the time a working relationship with core congress of racial equality. Niger Ennis, Roy Ennis. Roy Ennis has since passed away. And I’ve got some pictures with Niger Ennis. And we did a couple of radio shows together. And I really like Niger, but there were some issues going on.

We’re trying to iron it all out. And we had another person who was involved in saying, well, maybe we need to create a parallel organization called National Corps or something to try and get this done. And the plan was to get constitution classes into the inner cities. And so my plan was, the way to do it was to build a relationship with the churches in the inner cities, teach the assistant pastors, the youth ministers, and other trusted clergy in the neighborhoods how to teach a constitution so that the constitution, the original intent, could be taught to this community that’s been told it’s a racist document, and it’s not.

Frederick Douglass tells you, hey, this is not a racist document. The three fifth clause, argued, Frederick Douglass, encouraged the southern states to abolish slavery so they could increase their representation in the House of Representatives for. So I wanted to get this into those neighborhoods, this understanding, this teaching, this education. Pastor Larkin says to me, you know, that’s a great idea. I understand what you’re trying to do. I like it.

I agree with everything you’re saying. But be careful with that word liberty. What do you mean, be careful with that word liberty? I say. He says, well, you have to remember, for those who live in neighborhoods where it’s a food desert, in other words, it’s such a bad, the crime is so bad that the grocery stores have abandoned the neighborhood. If you want to go to the grocery store, you got to go to the iranian market on the corner, or you got to leave the neighborhood to go to the grocery store.

To people in that neighborhood, liberty is only for white people, liberty is dangerous because it means that you have to fend for yourself. And these people have been convinced that they cannot pull themselves out of poverty. It’s impossible to get out of poverty. And if it wasn’t for the government programs, they would be more poor than they are now. That is what our number one left wing knuckleheads have done.

They’ve trained certain communities and certain people in the society of all races that they are worthless and cannot pull themselves out of poverty. And B, that the constitution is dangerous. And because we don’t understand the constitution, we don’t understand those principles that are actually in the constitution and what they really mean, we fall for it, and that’s the danger. This is the reason why the Bill of rights and understanding that they have pulled a blanket over your eyes, you can’t see.

And so when I say, well, the incorporation doctrine is wrong, and then go back to what I explained earlier, and people freak out, they’ve got us convinced of all kinds of things that just aren’t true. So really think about this for a second, and remember, when it comes to our rights, our rights are God given. I’m not arguing that the states can walk all of our rights. I’m saying that your rights are a local issue.

The federal government has no authority over them. If we need to make any laws regarding our rights, that’s where local government comes in. So, once again, when I say that this applies to federal government, that’s what I mean. I’m not saying the state is going to stomp all over the rights. The principles are still there. You’re right. The states are not supposed to stomp on what these principles and these rights are either.

But there is a little bit of leeway just in case. Rights. I mean, laws do need to be made, but it’s our responsibility to make sure they don’t go too far. And thank you. Day girl 56. That’s why the state constitutions are there. That’s the whole point of the state constitution. Okay. The parts of the federal government, the federal constitution that does not address the states don’t apply to the states, but those principles need to be applied to the states.

What do we do? That’s what our state constitutions are for, and they may be identical. Of some cases, they may be slightly different depending on what it is. And I wanted to lay that groundwork because I don’t want to just start doing this stuff, and then you just don’t get the foundation here. And thank you. Real special ed about way I’m setting the foundation here because, like I said, a couple of weeks ago, I had someone who kind of got nervous about all the saying, and I really wanted to lay that out there so that it was fully understood.

Welcome back. Can I hear you? Can you hear me? Well? Can you hear me? I can hear you. Okay. Yeah. I was just glad it wasn’t me, because in the past. Okay, so what I really need to do is I need to get one of those covers for my soundboard, because I’ve got these little four legged, furry friends that my soundboard is on an angle, it’s on a slant, and they keep stepping on it.

And they pushed the volume to my headset all the way down. And I didn’t know that that’s. Anyway, well, either you need to get a cover for the soundboard, or you need to train them on the proper way to use a soundboard, one or the other. That would be a little bit more challenging and a lot more time consuming, probably more expeditious to just get a cover. And that, my friends, is why I appreciate donkeys.

They stay on the ground where they belong. Yeah, but they are also loud. Are you loud? Okay. He says he’s not loud. All right. The great thing about dogs is no matter how you discipline them, what you do to them, the next day, they’re still happy to see you, cat. They’ll hold a grudge for a week. That is not true. Oh, I’ve had cats. That’s not true. You heard me tell the joke about the difference between dogs and cats, right? No, I’m sure I have a dog.

You take care of a dog, the dog thinks, gosh, that person is taking care of me. That person must be God. You take care of a cat, and the cat thinks to itself, that person takes care of me. I must be God. See, that’s the difference between a dog and a cat. All right? That’s one way to look at it. All right, so let’s get into a reading the constitution now.

So I was just laying a lot of groundwork because I want people to really understand what you understand. I tuned in on my phone, so I heard a good portion of what you were saying. Okay. And I just want to make sure people have a foundation here. So when we talk about this stuff, we say, this applies to federal government. They understand what I mean. Let me go ahead and share the.

So amendment five is where we’re at, because we went through amendment four last week, last time, Fifth amendment. So here’s what it says. We’ll read it, and then we’ll go over it bit by bit here. So no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. Now we’re talking federal grand jury. We’re talking federal crime here.

So let’s stop there. So what is a capital crime? A capital crime is a crime in which the punishment is capital punishment. What is capital punishment? Death or otherwise infamous crime. If you look up what infamous crime? It means a crime that is an infamy, meaning that it is a serious crime that is forged by or connected to deception. Now, I always thought that was an interesting definition, because really, all crimes involve deception.

But in the case of this, it’s your more major, I guess, your embezzlements and so on and so forth. But the grand jury, this is what’s interesting. So understand something. The founding fathers believe that our natural rights are so important that even if you’re a criminal, even if you’ve committed a crime, you have your rights. And even though you do your due process and trial, in these cases of these bigger crimes, they’re even going to make sure there’s an extra step with a grand jury.

In other words, you’re not just going straight to trial. First, it’s going to be presented to a grand jury, and the grand jury has to determine if there’s enough evidence, if it’s even worthy to go to court. I’ve always thought how wonderful our constitution is, that even if you are considered the worst of the worst, there is a process just to make sure there’s a process that respects that you still have your rights.

You have a right to due process, you have a right to go through this whole thing in our legal system, not just to know charged, considered guilty like they do with Trump, but there’s this system, Trump’s apparently the exception to the rule here. So now I’m going to continue reading the Fifth Amendment, but I want you to keep thinking about this stuff as we go through the fifth and 6th Amendment, because it’s amazing that they make sure even if you’re charged before you’re convicted, you’ve got all these rights.

They want to make sure that there’s no monkey business. So let me begin again. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia, or when in actual service, in time of war or public danger. In that case, you’ve got court martial.

It’s a whole different judicial system. Nor shall any person be subject to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Double jeopardy. Hey, man, if you’re acquitted, that’s it, you’re done. They can’t say, well, let’s see if we can get them on this angle. That’s where I hate the fact that they go, well, let’s go after them civilly. To me, I really do feel like, that’s sort of double jeopardy.

And I’ll have illegal legals arguing with me all day that it isn’t because it’s a different kind of case. But I’m not a fan of wolf. He didn’t get them criminally. We’ll hit them civilly. I’ve always hated that. The civil thing has to do with basically monetary. Yes. Yeah. It’s just. At least get them punitively. Well, it’s punitive regardless. Well, yeah, but I mean, money wise. Yeah, right.

But anyway, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The right to remain silent. So you’ve heard someone say, well, I’m going to plead the fifth. That’s what it means. And now when you say, plead the fifth, you’re supposed to do it at the beginning. You don’t talk and then say, oh, by the way, I plead the fifth. Too late. Shut your mouth in the beginning.

When you plead the fifth, you have the right to remain silent. Don’t open your mouth. Don’t incriminate yourself, don’t be stupid. Until you’ve got some type of counsel and you can figure it out. So you can’t be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty of property without due process alone. Your life, liberty of property, none of their business until you’ve been convicted.

If you have not gone through the full due process, and then convicted hands know they’re not supposed to anyway. Of course, once again, seems like Trump is the exception. Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Imminent domain. That’s an interesting throw in at the end of this, but it’s an interesting one. So what it’s saying is your private property belongs to you. It does not belong to government to use however they want to.

However, if your property needs to be taken for public use, needs to be used for public use, there must be just compensation. When I get to this in my classes, I ask, what is just compensation? And 99% of the time, I will get someone in the crowd say, fair market value. That is not the right answer. Just compensation is what you believe to be just. If they can’t pay you what you believe is just, they cannot take your property, or at least not they can, but they’re not supposed to constitutionally.

Well, I would argue that I agree 99% of that. But there’s like, that one little, like, if somebody’s like, well, my property is worth $10 million, and it’s really like they’re just saying that. All right, then I guess we’re building the parking lot around them. You ever watch some of these old movies or old cartoons that has the railroad going through the plains, and there’s this one ranch, and the railroad stops, goes around it, and it continues.

You ever seen those? It always cracks me up. That’s the guy who wouldn’t sell or one of my favorites is the black and white movies. There’s a handful of them that do this. And you’re in all these skyscrapers, and there’s traffic going, and there’s this one little house, a little white picket fence. Little old lady in the front yard still watering her roses, right? That’s someone who the just compensation just wasn’t good enough, so they built around it.

Technically, just compensation means if it’s priceless to you, guess what? They’re not supposed to take it. Now, they know this. So what they do, if they do come across somebody who they just can’t get out of there is they start finding other ways to do it. Usually it’s environmentally inspired. It’s called fires or directed energy weapons. Well, yeah, there’s that, too. But no, what I mean is, like, blue lining.

Okay. Oh, you don’t want to let go of your property. That’s okay. Oh, look on the map. The blue line got moved in your now conservation area, so you’re not allowed to build on your property anymore. You can’t add to it. And the property now value is going down because no one will buy a property that cannot be developed. But don’t worry, we’ll save you. We’ll pay you a fair market value.

Now that the fair market value is much less than what it used to be, to take it off your hands. And then suddenly, after the public domain or the government gets a hold of your property, suddenly that blue line goes away, and they’re able to build section eight housing or a shopping mall or a freeway or whatever. So, yeah, they find their ways around it. But from a founding father’s point of view, your property is your property.

It cannot be used for public use unless you say so. And if you need to lose it for that purpose, they must give you just compensation. And that just compensation is determined by you. They can’t say, here’s your check. You got to take it. Now screw off. They’re not supposed to be able to do that. I know. They violate this all the time. I get these questions all the time when people go, yeah, but then how is it, Doug, that they.

Well, how is it that a burglar walks into a liquor store and robs it when it’s against the law because they’re a criminal. How is it that these people do these things anyway, regardless constitution, because they’re criminals. And we let them. You know what? If the guy’s walking in the liquor store and the guy behind the counter has a shotgun, guess what? The crime stops really fast. Just saying.

But we let them. We have let them do these things to us because we have not stood firm because we didn’t even realize we could. They said, well, no, we interpret the constitution. We say it means this. But don’t worry, fine citizen, we’ll take care of you. Okay, well, and then a lot of that kind of gets into judicial review where the lawyers have essentially, they have a monopoly on interpretation.

Well, if we say what it means, and it doesn’t matter what you say, we are the ones who determine the meaning. But I’ve got this panel of experts that says otherwise, and it’s a consensus. Well, as one of my favorite shirts says, a lie does not become truth just because it’s accepted by the majority. Right? Well, some people say, yeah, but Doug, it’s legal. Well, at one time, slavery was legal, too.

Did that make it good or right? Well, I think that’s when you’re going to get into the legal and lawful. Yeah. All right. Well, rule of law comes down to rule of law. And our system supposed the idea of our system is the rule of law. What is the natural order of things? What is right and wrong? But see, when you don’t have a standard, the rule of law becomes blurred.

And that’s one things that we’re experiencing in today’s society, is that standard is being erased so that nobody knows what the rule of law is anymore. And if there is no rule of law, there is no standard. Anything goes. Eventually, people stop following the law because anything goes. And you wind up with chaos. And in the chaos, you get disorder, you get death, you get destruction. And then people start crying out for order.

And the very people who cause the chaos then promise the order. But the order is a totalitarian type order, and you wind up worse off than if you would have just stuck to the rule of law in the first place. Well, you get into the hegelian dialectic with that. That’s a part of that. That’s just common sense. I mean, you’re right. Hegelian dialectic ties into that. And a great example for those of you who don’t know what the hegelian dialectic is, it’s basically a three step process to change a society.

Create a problem. You create an opposition of the problem. You create a solution to the problem. My favorite example is you create the problem. Racism. You create the opposition of the problem. Black lives matter. You create the solution to the problem. More government intervention. You’re right. But it’s also just common sense. Patriot act was the patriot. The Patriot act is a great example of hegelian dialectic. Well, and the Patriot Act, I tell people, I said I didn’t know why we needed it.

We already have a patriot act. It’s called the second amendment. If everybody was armed, terrorism is the least of our problems. Yes, and that’s where I’m kind of leaning on this TikTok thing. It’s sort of like another patriot act in the sense that, well, look, the enemy. And so we have to stop the enemy. So we’re going to ban a social media company from. You open that door for that.

But don’t worry, it’s only going to be against chinese owned companies. You got to understand and see. I understand. Well, no, I understand what China is doing. I understand the danger. But if you allow the government to ban one, how long before the United States. TikTok in the United States is not what TikTok is in China. In China, TikTok is very much about. It’s. It’s not all these stupid gaffes and the absurdity that’s in the United States.

That’s just the americanized version of it. Right? In China, it’s not anything near what it is here. Yeah, but my point is, if you begin banning anything in the free market because it’s being wielded by the enemy, then the enemy, that definition becomes broader, and other things get banned. It’s opening up a pandora’s box. Well, that’s basically what you’re talking about, is everything the Marxists have used, they’ve used it on our society because our society doesn’t have a moral compass.

Go ahead. Well, 17 raccoons. Marbury versus Madison. Established principle of judicial review. Caught on that. I was not proud of it. All right, so just think about that for a second. 17 raccoons. In order for something to be established constitutionally, how must it be established? Through the constitution. But in this case, the courts gave themselves the power through a judicial decision. How is that constitutional, number one? Number two, by giving the courts the ability to interpret in the manner that they do, opens us up to them interpreting it any way they want.

It’s a very dangerous proposition. It was never intended. Judicial review was actually discussed during the constitutional convention and rejected. All right, before we get too far off on too many more rabbit holes. Yeah. Well, let’s get to amendment six, because I want to connect it with amendment five because it’s the same language. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

According to the US code, a speedy trial is within 70 days. Well, I went out the door with January 6, didn’t it? All right, so in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. You have to remember, this was written because of what was going on under british rule. Under british rule, people were being detained and held indefinitely and didn’t get their trial or didn’t get it speedy or be closed door trials, or it would be a trial without a.

So they are writing this based on their experience with the British Empire? Yeah. And like you accurately said, J six. Yeah. Unfortunately, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. What was sometimes happening is they would ship people to Britain to face charges. So once again, this is a reaction to or response to their own experiences.

Which district shall have been previously ascertained by law? What the boundary lines of this district is judicial district. And when it says ascertained by law, that means that the lines have been determined through a legislative process. When it says ascertained by law, that’s what it means. The legislative process had been gone through in order to establish it. Each house, whether it’s state or federal, whatever, has to approve it, and then it has to be signed by the executive or the veto, overridden one or the other.

So that’s what it means. By ascertained by law, it went through the legislative process. It wasn’t just determined by a committee and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. That is actually the first in today’s idea of what due process is. That’s the first line of due process. To be given notice, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. That is step one of due process, to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

So the witnesses that are accusing you can’t be hidden in some room. There needs to be a confrontation. You need to see them, know them, talk to them in the court of law, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. Once again, Trump and J six people seem to be the exception here for some reason, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Boy, that sounds familiar.

Right to remain silent, to have the assistance of counsel for your defense. It sounds like something that we hear all the time, right? It’s called the Miranda rights right. Miranda rights comes from a case in 1969, Miranda versus something. I can’t remember the whole thing, but it established that the person didn’t fully understand their rights. Ignorance is no excuse, they say, but in this case, ignorance was. And so the idea of giving the Miranda rights, explaining to everybody their rights.

You have the right to shut your mouth. You have the right to remain silent. You have the right. Do you have a right to counsel? If you can’t afford counsel, then counsel will be given to you through a public defender. So that all ties into what became the Miranda rights. This is all part of our due process. Now, once again, let me go back to what I said earlier about all this, all of the stuff that I just read.

For a lot of us, it’s common sense. Well, yeah, trial by jury, speedy public. Yeah. These were all things being violated by the British. These are all things that the founders said. Hey, even if somebody is indicted for something, they still have their rights. They still have the right to go through due process just because you’re positive they did something. They still have the right to go through that entire process before they are convicted.

Innocent until proven guilty. And this is a concept that is biblical deuteronomy. And it goes back through the Saxon system. The Saxons, which really were the foundation of the british system, from which our system derived from innocent until proven guilty, was a very big deal in the Saxon society. I don’t know how many of you have watched. There’s a short video that’s out there on the Internet called the american form of government.

And it’s from a John Burke society video. Oh, yeah, you know what I’m talking about? Where it shows the difference between republican democracy and all sorts of stuff. And one of the scenes, to help you understand, it says, to help us understand the difference between a republic and democracy, let’s show a scene in the old west. And I think that it’s appropriate here and in this video, what it says is there’s a murderer and a posse of 30 get together.

They chase down the accused murderer. They capture him, they bring him back. They vote 30 to one. Now he should be hanged for his murder. They throw a rope over the highest branch. The news, they hang him. And democracy is one, democracy is won. There is one less murderer in the world. In a republic, same thing happens. There’s a murderer, he takes off. Aposte chases it down. They bring him back.

They vote 30 to one to hang them. They throw the rope over the branch, and then the sheriff shows up, says, wait a second, boys. He has his rights. He has a right to a fair trial. He is innocent till proven guilty. And even then, it’s not a majority vote with this jury. It must be a unanimous decision. That is what our justice system is supposed to be about.

It is not a democracy. It’s not a democratic system. We just vote to go after the. While we say he’s guilty, he’s gone. There is a process, and that is a part of what a republic is. There are processes that guard against mob rule, and the process of due process is exactly that. Because you have your rights. Your rights are given to you by God. There are natural rights.

And government at any level is not supposed to just democratically throw you in jail and get rid of you, because that’s what tyrannies do. And then you hear us say, well, gosh, well, January 6 and Trump, that’s what tyrannies do. The tyrannies have risen and they’re violating these principles. And we’ve seen it with Jan six and Trump. Who’s next after that? If they succeed with them, who’s next after that? Where is the jury by peers? This is an old idea here.

It says impartial jury. The idea of jury by your peers is a traditional way of saying it. And in the old country, with the Saxons and old Britain and even in early America, a jury of your peers, it wasn’t just an unbiased jury, but it was of those people who knew you, who lived with you, who were familiar with you. Today we hear jury of your peers, and we think, well, he was middle class, so a bunch of middle class Americans, and that’s not what it meant.

It meant those who knew you, because if they could be convinced you were guilty, you’re definitely guilty. And that was because I was going to say, I know this isn’t your favorite one, the little American, the handbook here, the citizens rule book, it says, our forefathers felt that in order to have justice, it is obvious that a jury of peers must be people who actually know the defendant.

How else would they be able to judge motive and intent? Peers of the defendant, like the rights of the jury, have also been severely tarnished. Originally, it meant people of equals in station and rank, freeholders of a neighborhood or a companion, a fellow or an associate. And it was Patrick Henry, along with others, was deeply concerned as to who has the right to sit on a jury. And it says, listen to our forefathers wisdom on the subject of peers.

By the Bill of Rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers, those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life. Patrick Henry also knew that originally, jury of peers was designed as a protection for neighbors from outside governmental oppression. Henry states the following. Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off.

This gives me comfort that as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me, essentially, as long as the people who have. You said it? Well, if twelve people could be convinced, who know you can be convinced that you committed a crime, then the evidence is that heavy. Yeah. And the thing is, too, is this idea, just prior to the revolutionary war, because of the taxation against goods, imported goods, and the only goods allowed to be imported was british goods, to make sure you paid the tax.

And so what was happening is a lot of the colonists would then smuggle in goods that didn’t get paid the tax from other countries, Barbados, for sugar and stuff like that. And then they would have these writs of assistance where the British would come in and search your homes, find the contraband goods, and then the person would go to trial. But because it was a trial by jury of your peers, your neighborhood, of course, the colonists say, no, he’s innocent.

And so this frustrated the British. So what they did is they eliminated a jury by peers. And for some of the people, they shipped them to Britain for their trials, and for others, they held what’s called admiralty courts, which means that they got rid of the juries, they got rid of the locally appointed judges, they brought in a judge from Britain, and then it was basically a hanging judge, like Trump had there in New York, who was already against them before it all started.

And there’s no jury. And so the founding fathers, when they’re writing this, once again, they’re writing from experience, and the jury by your peers was very important, because the best way to keep tyranny from doing what it does is to make sure that the communities stand together. And that includes ruling on their own, the criminality of their own members. Exactly. But anyway, no, it’s a very good point.

I’m glad you brought it up. And what’s in that handbook, what you read is exactly right. Listen, and we got, like, two minutes from the top. I’m going to have to skedaddle here in a second, so I’ll just let you. I finished Amendment six, so I’m happy we got there. All right, so we got, what, two more? Yeah, we got two more from the legal amendments. And then we’ll get to the 9th and the 10th, which are critical.

So 7th and eigth, I would say next week we’ll get into the 9th and then we probably begin the 10th. Whether or not we finish the 10th, I can’t guarantee it because it’s a big deal, right? Well, yeah, this is good stuff. Good stuff. I’m glad you’re feeling well enough to do the show today. I tell you, man, you heard me coughing a few times earlier. I mean, that was nonstop and just really not feeling good and feverish a whole bit.

But now it’s just down to basically just finishing this off and getting rid of it. But I tell you, whatever hit me. I know when you’re sick, I get sick just looking at you. You’re funny. All right, squid, get out of here. All right, well, you all enjoy your evening, and if you want to jump on over when Mr. Gibbs is finished, I’ll be talking about Mr. Eisenhower and the myth of the military industrial complex.

That’s going to be fun tonight. I might want to listen to that later just to see if I can. Well, because how he talked about the military industrial complex and his farewell speech. All right, guys, well, I’ll see you shortly if you decide to come over. So I’ll let Doug take you home. All right, thanks, Ron, as always. And once again, my name is Douglas v. Gibbs. Mr.

Constitution. You can find me@douglasvgibs. com my latest book is available. Go to Amazon because right now that’s the only place I have to sell it right now. We should have a portal for you to buy it from our own direct store in the next couple of weeks, hopefully. But my latest book is now available. It’s a 750 page history book, early american history from before the colonization of the new world all the way up to the election of Jefferson in 1800.

It’s part one of a three book series on american history, and it is available. It’s called now I got to remember the name. A promise of truth, self evident, part one. So look up Douglas v. Gibbs, a promise of truth, self evident on Amazon to find. The book is 59, 99, $60. For those of you here in southern California, I should be getting my copies for events and classes and all of that right around the 1 April.

And so the week after that I will have copies for autographing. If you buy a copy. You want an autograph? Get a hold of me. Constitutionspeaker@yahoo. com constitutionspeaker@yahoo. com we’ll figure out a way to make sure you get your copy autograph. But my latest book is available right now on Amazon and it is called a Promise of Truth. Self evident, part one, american history, early american history, part one, and I’m excited about it.

Also, go to douglasvgibs. com if you want to help fund what I do and become a patron, you can become a patron where it says join. It’s $9 a month. Helps fund what I do down the road. We’re going to have some exclusive member stuff for patrons. Right now I’m not quite there. Within the next few months, the website is going to be going through a lot of upgrades because I’m moving out of the state in July out of California, and at that time we are moving everything online.

I won’t be doing the live classes anymore in person. And so I’m going to start classes, a couple of classes during the week. I’m going to start doing more videos. I’m going to start blogging more. I’m going to start kicking out more books. In that transition, it’s always nice if we can help fund it. So join. Become a patron@douglasvgibs. com. Thanks for spending the time with me. United we stand combined we kick butt.

God bless America, my friends. God bless you. Thank you for spending the time with me. We’ll see you next week as we work our way through the constitution. Bye bye now. .

See more of Untold History Channel on their Public Channel and the MPN Untold History Channel channel.