Sentence
stringlengths 118
2.7k
| video_title
stringlengths 38
107
|
|---|---|
In terms of the partisanship of the press, it is a reversion towards the early days of America. And in terms of the partisanship of the individual members of Congress or of the White House, what is a little bit different is that the call to virtue, which would snap people out of their partisanship, is still up for grabs. Whether the original, the founders when they fought like cats and dogs during the early years of the administrations, I mean, Thomas Jefferson was best friends with John Adams and essentially then hired a newspaper writer to undermine Adams when he was president. I mean, this was a very dirty pool. The argument they were making though was our country is new and what is at stake is the very survival of the American experiment. And so they were fighting for real stakes. They weren't just trying to primarily keep power. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
I mean, this was a very dirty pool. The argument they were making though was our country is new and what is at stake is the very survival of the American experiment. And so they were fighting for real stakes. They weren't just trying to primarily keep power. They were really trying to make this flower bloom that they had just planted. So now the question is what role does virtue play in the American experience to pull people away from their partisanship, to make them work together for common interests? And what is that shared area of common interest? | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
They weren't just trying to primarily keep power. They were really trying to make this flower bloom that they had just planted. So now the question is what role does virtue play in the American experience to pull people away from their partisanship, to make them work together for common interests? And what is that shared area of common interest? What pulls them away from what the founders knew people would behave like dogs sometimes, but they thought they could pull away if they thought about the common interest. Well is that pull still there? So there's a lot of talk these days about the polarization of the media or the polarization of politics in general. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And what is that shared area of common interest? What pulls them away from what the founders knew people would behave like dogs sometimes, but they thought they could pull away if they thought about the common interest. Well is that pull still there? So there's a lot of talk these days about the polarization of the media or the polarization of politics in general. How much of it do you think is due to things like social media or do you think it was inevitable? Well we've always had polarization in American politics, but there was a dose of something else which was a call to a higher American ideal. And also voters would vote on people based on their virtue, on their larger than life statesmanship which was not partisan. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So there's a lot of talk these days about the polarization of the media or the polarization of politics in general. How much of it do you think is due to things like social media or do you think it was inevitable? Well we've always had polarization in American politics, but there was a dose of something else which was a call to a higher American ideal. And also voters would vote on people based on their virtue, on their larger than life statesmanship which was not partisan. So you had to keep a balance. If you were being highly partisan, you kind of did it in quiet. What's changed now with social media and also with the flood of money in politics is that it has encouraged people to be more and more partisan. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And also voters would vote on people based on their virtue, on their larger than life statesmanship which was not partisan. So you had to keep a balance. If you were being highly partisan, you kind of did it in quiet. What's changed now with social media and also with the flood of money in politics is that it has encouraged people to be more and more partisan. The louder and hotter I talk on a specific issue, the more money I'm going to be able to raise, the more interest groups are going to like me, and the more clicks I'm going to get because I'm the one making the most flamboyant noise. The problem is that means the arguments are always containing flamboyant noise. And the people who want a calm, steady, measured conversation, well they're not getting read on social media. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
What's changed now with social media and also with the flood of money in politics is that it has encouraged people to be more and more partisan. The louder and hotter I talk on a specific issue, the more money I'm going to be able to raise, the more interest groups are going to like me, and the more clicks I'm going to get because I'm the one making the most flamboyant noise. The problem is that means the arguments are always containing flamboyant noise. And the people who want a calm, steady, measured conversation, well they're not getting read on social media. They're not in charge of the interest groups that pay millions and millions of dollars. So the system encourages people to stay apart. And that's one of the biggest challenges. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And the people who want a calm, steady, measured conversation, well they're not getting read on social media. They're not in charge of the interest groups that pay millions and millions of dollars. So the system encourages people to stay apart. And that's one of the biggest challenges. Secretary of Defense James Mattis says it may be the greatest threat to American democracy, that polarization. And do you see a way of this getting resolved? Or does it get worse? | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And that's one of the biggest challenges. Secretary of Defense James Mattis says it may be the greatest threat to American democracy, that polarization. And do you see a way of this getting resolved? Or does it get worse? Does it get better? There have been periods of American history where we have been the split. Obviously the Civil War was a period of great rending in the American fabric. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Or does it get worse? Does it get better? There have been periods of American history where we have been the split. Obviously the Civil War was a period of great rending in the American fabric. What changed it was an actual conflict. And so that, God forbid, would be one way to do it. Another would be if there was a threat to America from outside its borders and people would feel an acute sense of national pride and patriotism. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Obviously the Civil War was a period of great rending in the American fabric. What changed it was an actual conflict. And so that, God forbid, would be one way to do it. Another would be if there was a threat to America from outside its borders and people would feel an acute sense of national pride and patriotism. But other than that, there doesn't appear to be at the moment a quick fix for what is a complicated problem for why the two parties have gotten into a kind of inescapable fight that they can't seem to get themselves out of. It's like we need a shock to remind ourselves how much commonality there is so all of the polarizing quibbling kind of goes away or at least gets covered up a little bit. Big changes in American history usually happen from a shock and it's what breaks people out of their behavior and also which tells a lot of the people in the rest of the country who don't participate in presidential elections and don't participate in congressional elections. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Another would be if there was a threat to America from outside its borders and people would feel an acute sense of national pride and patriotism. But other than that, there doesn't appear to be at the moment a quick fix for what is a complicated problem for why the two parties have gotten into a kind of inescapable fight that they can't seem to get themselves out of. It's like we need a shock to remind ourselves how much commonality there is so all of the polarizing quibbling kind of goes away or at least gets covered up a little bit. Big changes in American history usually happen from a shock and it's what breaks people out of their behavior and also which tells a lot of the people in the rest of the country who don't participate in presidential elections and don't participate in congressional elections. It reminds them that something real is at stake. And there is a vast group of Americans who really want solutions in the middle, who don't care about the bickering and the ideology. But a lot of them don't participate in politics. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Now what do I mean by congressional roles? Well, whether someone is a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate or even one of the state legislatures, there's different ways that they can act on behalf of the people that they are representing. One way is to just be a delegate. And that's to say, okay, what would my people that I'm trying to represent want me to do? And then to do exactly that. The other role is to be a trustee. And this is the idea of, well, there's some issues where either the people in my district don't have an opinion, or maybe if they superficially looked at it, they would want to vote one way, but I, as a representative, as a trustee, I can dig a little bit deeper into the nuances and realize what's actually better for the people that I represent or for a country as a whole. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And that's to say, okay, what would my people that I'm trying to represent want me to do? And then to do exactly that. The other role is to be a trustee. And this is the idea of, well, there's some issues where either the people in my district don't have an opinion, or maybe if they superficially looked at it, they would want to vote one way, but I, as a representative, as a trustee, I can dig a little bit deeper into the nuances and realize what's actually better for the people that I represent or for a country as a whole. So one way to think about it, a delegate would get a sense of the people that they're representing, what they would want, and just do that, while a trustee would say, okay, what do I believe is best either for the people that I'm representing or for the country as a whole? And sometimes they obviously could coincide. And the third type of role is politico. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And this is the idea of, well, there's some issues where either the people in my district don't have an opinion, or maybe if they superficially looked at it, they would want to vote one way, but I, as a representative, as a trustee, I can dig a little bit deeper into the nuances and realize what's actually better for the people that I represent or for a country as a whole. So one way to think about it, a delegate would get a sense of the people that they're representing, what they would want, and just do that, while a trustee would say, okay, what do I believe is best either for the people that I'm representing or for the country as a whole? And sometimes they obviously could coincide. And the third type of role is politico. Now, the everyday definition for politico is a politician. And sometimes it's used in the not-so-favorable sense. But in the context of, especially in a government class, a politico is a representative who does a little bit of both, depending on the situation. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And the third type of role is politico. Now, the everyday definition for politico is a politician. And sometimes it's used in the not-so-favorable sense. But in the context of, especially in a government class, a politico is a representative who does a little bit of both, depending on the situation. If there's something that the people that they represent care a lot about, something that the constituents care a lot about, well, there they would say, okay, you know what? I'm just gonna vote the way they want me to vote, even if I don't necessarily agree with it because it matters to them a lot, so there I'm gonna be a delegate. But on the things that really matter to me or that don't matter so much to my constituents, well, there I'm going to be a trustee. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But in the context of, especially in a government class, a politico is a representative who does a little bit of both, depending on the situation. If there's something that the people that they represent care a lot about, something that the constituents care a lot about, well, there they would say, okay, you know what? I'm just gonna vote the way they want me to vote, even if I don't necessarily agree with it because it matters to them a lot, so there I'm gonna be a delegate. But on the things that really matter to me or that don't matter so much to my constituents, well, there I'm going to be a trustee. So you could view a politico as a bit of a hybrid. So with that out of the way, let's look at some scenarios and think about whether these are describing a representative as a delegate, a trustee, or a politico. So let's start with this first one. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But on the things that really matter to me or that don't matter so much to my constituents, well, there I'm going to be a trustee. So you could view a politico as a bit of a hybrid. So with that out of the way, let's look at some scenarios and think about whether these are describing a representative as a delegate, a trustee, or a politico. So let's start with this first one. It says, there is a vote on a bill in the House of Representatives that would increase environmental regulations on major businesses. Several citizens in Illinois' 9th Congressional District have contacted their representative to influence them to vote in favor of the bill. However, Representative Whalen thinks that these regulations will cost businesses too much money, which will lead businesses to firing his constituents, so he decides to vote against it. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So let's start with this first one. It says, there is a vote on a bill in the House of Representatives that would increase environmental regulations on major businesses. Several citizens in Illinois' 9th Congressional District have contacted their representative to influence them to vote in favor of the bill. However, Representative Whalen thinks that these regulations will cost businesses too much money, which will lead businesses to firing his constituents, so he decides to vote against it. So pause this video. And so is Representative Whalen, or Wallen, acting as a delegate, a trustee, or a politico? So the key clues here are that Representative Whalen, or Wallen, decides to vote against the bill despite the fact that some of his constituents have contacted him to vote in favor of the bill. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
However, Representative Whalen thinks that these regulations will cost businesses too much money, which will lead businesses to firing his constituents, so he decides to vote against it. So pause this video. And so is Representative Whalen, or Wallen, acting as a delegate, a trustee, or a politico? So the key clues here are that Representative Whalen, or Wallen, decides to vote against the bill despite the fact that some of his constituents have contacted him to vote in favor of the bill. And so here, he is clearly acting based on his own beliefs. So he is acting as a trustee. He's doing what he thinks is best for his constituents, even though they might not agree with it. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So the key clues here are that Representative Whalen, or Wallen, decides to vote against the bill despite the fact that some of his constituents have contacted him to vote in favor of the bill. And so here, he is clearly acting based on his own beliefs. So he is acting as a trustee. He's doing what he thinks is best for his constituents, even though they might not agree with it. Let's look at another scenario. In the Senate, there is a vote on a bill that would eliminate the penny. Citizens in Indiana reach out to their senator to encourage her to support the bill. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
He's doing what he thinks is best for his constituents, even though they might not agree with it. Let's look at another scenario. In the Senate, there is a vote on a bill that would eliminate the penny. Citizens in Indiana reach out to their senator to encourage her to support the bill. Even though Senator Portela thinks the penny is incredibly useful, she decides to vote for the bill. So pause this video and think about how is Senator Portela acting as a delegate, trustee, or politico? Well, it's pretty clear that she's doing exactly what her constituents want her to do. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Citizens in Indiana reach out to their senator to encourage her to support the bill. Even though Senator Portela thinks the penny is incredibly useful, she decides to vote for the bill. So pause this video and think about how is Senator Portela acting as a delegate, trustee, or politico? Well, it's pretty clear that she's doing exactly what her constituents want her to do. The constituents are encouraging her to support the bill, and she votes the bill. And she's doing this despite what she thinks is the better option. Even though she likes the penny, she's going to vote to eliminate the penny because that's what her constituents want. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, it's pretty clear that she's doing exactly what her constituents want her to do. The constituents are encouraging her to support the bill, and she votes the bill. And she's doing this despite what she thinks is the better option. Even though she likes the penny, she's going to vote to eliminate the penny because that's what her constituents want. So she is clearly acting as a delegate. And to be clear, and this is often the case, many times a representative will agree with their constituents, and then in that situation, they're acting as both a delegate and a trustee. Now let's look at one more scenario. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Even though she likes the penny, she's going to vote to eliminate the penny because that's what her constituents want. So she is clearly acting as a delegate. And to be clear, and this is often the case, many times a representative will agree with their constituents, and then in that situation, they're acting as both a delegate and a trustee. Now let's look at one more scenario. There are two major bills up for a vote in the Indiana State Senate. One bill will change the name of a high school in Indianapolis to Larry Bird High School. The other bill would set aside 100 acres for a new state park. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Now let's look at one more scenario. There are two major bills up for a vote in the Indiana State Senate. One bill will change the name of a high school in Indianapolis to Larry Bird High School. The other bill would set aside 100 acres for a new state park. Senator Kamath has received about 1,200 calls from her constituents asking her to support the bill to rename the high school, but no calls about the park bill. Senator Kamath is incredibly passionate about parks, but has not decided her vote on the renaming of the high school. Senator Kamath decides to vote in favor of the park bill, using her better judgment to decide her vote, and in favor of changing the name of the high school to represent her constituents' interests. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The other bill would set aside 100 acres for a new state park. Senator Kamath has received about 1,200 calls from her constituents asking her to support the bill to rename the high school, but no calls about the park bill. Senator Kamath is incredibly passionate about parks, but has not decided her vote on the renaming of the high school. Senator Kamath decides to vote in favor of the park bill, using her better judgment to decide her vote, and in favor of changing the name of the high school to represent her constituents' interests. So you, once again, should pause this video and figure out is Senator Kamath acting as a delegate, trustee, or politico? Well, you can see on the park bill, which she supports, so she votes in favor of the park bill, she does that because that's just what she thinks is better. She's using her better judgment. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Senator Kamath decides to vote in favor of the park bill, using her better judgment to decide her vote, and in favor of changing the name of the high school to represent her constituents' interests. So you, once again, should pause this video and figure out is Senator Kamath acting as a delegate, trustee, or politico? Well, you can see on the park bill, which she supports, so she votes in favor of the park bill, she does that because that's just what she thinks is better. She's using her better judgment. So in that scenario, she is acting as a trustee. She's doing what she thinks is right. And then on the naming the high school, Larry Bird High School, there she just says, hey, you know what, I don't have a strong opinion of it. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
She's using her better judgment. So in that scenario, she is acting as a trustee. She's doing what she thinks is right. And then on the naming the high school, Larry Bird High School, there she just says, hey, you know what, I don't have a strong opinion of it. I am just going to represent my constituents' interests. And so there, she's clearly acting as a delegate. And so the scenario where sometimes you act as a delegate, sometimes you act as a trustee, this is sometimes categorized, or often categorized, and especially in a government class, as a politico, which, as I mentioned before, is really just a term often used for a politician. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And then on the naming the high school, Larry Bird High School, there she just says, hey, you know what, I don't have a strong opinion of it. I am just going to represent my constituents' interests. And so there, she's clearly acting as a delegate. And so the scenario where sometimes you act as a delegate, sometimes you act as a trustee, this is sometimes categorized, or often categorized, and especially in a government class, as a politico, which, as I mentioned before, is really just a term often used for a politician. And you can imagine, it's very natural for a politician to sometimes act as a delegate. Hey, I've gotta make my constituents happy. Let me do exactly what they want me to do. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And so the scenario where sometimes you act as a delegate, sometimes you act as a trustee, this is sometimes categorized, or often categorized, and especially in a government class, as a politico, which, as I mentioned before, is really just a term often used for a politician. And you can imagine, it's very natural for a politician to sometimes act as a delegate. Hey, I've gotta make my constituents happy. Let me do exactly what they want me to do. But every now and then, my constituents either might not care about an issue, or they might not realize all of the details, or all of the implications, and so I might do something that's maybe not exactly what they want. And in those scenarios, well, then I'm just gonna, I'm just gonna vote my conscience. And if I do a little bit of both on different types of issues, well, then I'm acting as a politico. | Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
You can see it's being presided over by George Washington. And it starts, the preamble says, we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. So once again, pause this video and think about whether you see ideas of popular sovereignty, limited government, social contract, natural rights, going on even in this preamble or even from the fact that they took the trouble to create this Constitution. Well, let's start at the beginning. So it starts with we the people. We the people are the ones that are creating this Constitution. And not only does it start with we the people, but we the people is intentionally written in this very, very large writing right over here. | Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3 |
Well, let's start at the beginning. So it starts with we the people. We the people are the ones that are creating this Constitution. And not only does it start with we the people, but we the people is intentionally written in this very, very large writing right over here. This is a picture of the Constitution. So it's really all about we the people. The people are sovereign. | Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3 |
And not only does it start with we the people, but we the people is intentionally written in this very, very large writing right over here. This is a picture of the Constitution. So it's really all about we the people. The people are sovereign. So this idea of popular sovereignty comes out loud and clear in not just the Declaration of Independence, but also the US Constitution. And the fact that we the people are setting up this government, this is all about social contract. They are forming a government. | Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3 |
The people are sovereign. So this idea of popular sovereignty comes out loud and clear in not just the Declaration of Independence, but also the US Constitution. And the fact that we the people are setting up this government, this is all about social contract. They are forming a government. They're forming a social contract with a government that is going to protect, that is going to establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. So let me make this clear. That is this. | Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3 |
They are forming a government. They're forming a social contract with a government that is going to protect, that is going to establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. So let me make this clear. That is this. This is all social contract. This is what we expect this government that we're creating to do, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Now, what about things like limited government? | Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3 |
That is this. This is all social contract. This is what we expect this government that we're creating to do, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Now, what about things like limited government? Well, just the very fact that we have a Constitution is a sign of limited government, that it isn't just a pure democracy, that whoever is governing is going to be constrained. There, the rights of the government are going to be described by this Constitution. We also talk about the blessings of liberty. | Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3 |
Now, what about things like limited government? Well, just the very fact that we have a Constitution is a sign of limited government, that it isn't just a pure democracy, that whoever is governing is going to be constrained. There, the rights of the government are going to be described by this Constitution. We also talk about the blessings of liberty. So this is another reference to natural rights. The Declaration of Independence is a little bit more clear about natural rights or a little bit more explicit, but the blessings of liberty does talk about, or that's maybe in reference to natural rights. And so I will leave you there. | Democratic ideals in the preamble of the US Constitution.mp3 |
And my goal here is to not take any political sides and hopefully give an overview of what all of the debate is about and what this Affordable Care Act is all about. And I'm gonna start with the most controversial part, and this is the individual mandate. And this is the idea that you either have to get insurance or pay a penalty or a fee or a tax. Penalty, which is now being referred to as a tax by many folks. And the idea here, insurance, the idea here is that there are obviously many folks who are uninsured right now, and when they get sick, especially when they get very sick, they still get healthcare. And in particular, they will go to the emergency room. They will go to the emergency room, and that is quite possibly the most expensive part of the healthcare system to interface with. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
Penalty, which is now being referred to as a tax by many folks. And the idea here, insurance, the idea here is that there are obviously many folks who are uninsured right now, and when they get sick, especially when they get very sick, they still get healthcare. And in particular, they will go to the emergency room. They will go to the emergency room, and that is quite possibly the most expensive part of the healthcare system to interface with. So there's kind of a moral argument here, is that one, these people are getting sicker than they need to get. If they had insurance, then they would get preventative care and not get that sick. And then there's a financial, or I guess you could say a fairness argument, that these people are getting sick, going to the emergency room. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
They will go to the emergency room, and that is quite possibly the most expensive part of the healthcare system to interface with. So there's kind of a moral argument here, is that one, these people are getting sicker than they need to get. If they had insurance, then they would get preventative care and not get that sick. And then there's a financial, or I guess you could say a fairness argument, that these people are getting sick, going to the emergency room. They have to be given care at that emergency room. The hospitals bear those costs, and then eventually the hospitals recoup those costs by charging more for all sorts of other services, which eventually go back to the people who are paying for insurance, who actually are paying for the healthcare. And so if you have an individual mandate, it'll clear things up a little bit. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
And then there's a financial, or I guess you could say a fairness argument, that these people are getting sick, going to the emergency room. They have to be given care at that emergency room. The hospitals bear those costs, and then eventually the hospitals recoup those costs by charging more for all sorts of other services, which eventually go back to the people who are paying for insurance, who actually are paying for the healthcare. And so if you have an individual mandate, it'll clear things up a little bit. People will have to essentially pay for the healthcare that they are already getting. Now, the argument against the individual mandate is that this is the government putting into law saying that people have to buy something, in particular that they have to buy health insurance. Now, the counter argument to that that many people make is, well, there's something similar going on with car insurance. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
And so if you have an individual mandate, it'll clear things up a little bit. People will have to essentially pay for the healthcare that they are already getting. Now, the argument against the individual mandate is that this is the government putting into law saying that people have to buy something, in particular that they have to buy health insurance. Now, the counter argument to that that many people make is, well, there's something similar going on with car insurance. If you wanna drive in most states, you have to buy some type of car insurance, or at least show that you have the financial ability to pay any liabilities that you might have if you get into an accident. Now, the counter, counter, counter argument to that is, well, car insurance is not a, is something that someone, or driving is something that someone chooses to do, that you don't have to drive. While in the case of health insurance, this is something that this is every human being in the, in the, in the, in the country is being forced to get. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
Now, the counter argument to that that many people make is, well, there's something similar going on with car insurance. If you wanna drive in most states, you have to buy some type of car insurance, or at least show that you have the financial ability to pay any liabilities that you might have if you get into an accident. Now, the counter, counter, counter argument to that is, well, car insurance is not a, is something that someone, or driving is something that someone chooses to do, that you don't have to drive. While in the case of health insurance, this is something that this is every human being in the, in the, in the, in the country is being forced to get. I'll leave it to you to decide where you sit on that and what, what balances what other issue. Now, obviously, if you're going to decide whether you want insurance, or whether you're going to pay a penalty or a tax, you have to figure out how high is that penalty or tax going to be on you, or if you wanna figure out if this is a fair situation, you have to think about how high is that penalty or tax going to be. And the current provisions say that by 2016, and this is when the full penalties take effect, you're going to have to pay the maximum of either 2.5% of income, of income, or $695 for an individual, and $2,085 for a family. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
While in the case of health insurance, this is something that this is every human being in the, in the, in the, in the country is being forced to get. I'll leave it to you to decide where you sit on that and what, what balances what other issue. Now, obviously, if you're going to decide whether you want insurance, or whether you're going to pay a penalty or a tax, you have to figure out how high is that penalty or tax going to be on you, or if you wanna figure out if this is a fair situation, you have to think about how high is that penalty or tax going to be. And the current provisions say that by 2016, and this is when the full penalties take effect, you're going to have to pay the maximum of either 2.5% of income, of income, or $695 for an individual, and $2,085 for a family. And there are exceptions. This will not, this whole individual mandate won't apply to you if it, have getting insurance would cost you more than 8% of your total income, or if you belong to a religion that does not participate in the healthcare system, then it doesn't apply. And also, you will never have to pay more than 8% of what it would cost for you to get a health insurance policy. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
And the current provisions say that by 2016, and this is when the full penalties take effect, you're going to have to pay the maximum of either 2.5% of income, of income, or $695 for an individual, and $2,085 for a family. And there are exceptions. This will not, this whole individual mandate won't apply to you if it, have getting insurance would cost you more than 8% of your total income, or if you belong to a religion that does not participate in the healthcare system, then it doesn't apply. And also, you will never have to pay more than 8% of what it would cost for you to get a health insurance policy. But these are the general policy, the general penalties. And just to get an understanding of it, if you made $100,000 and chose not to get the insurance, you'll, the 2.5% is $2,500, which is more than either of these numbers, and so you will pay $2,500. If you, if your household makes $50,000, then the 2.5% would be less than this here, and so you would pay, you would pay this number right over there. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
And also, you will never have to pay more than 8% of what it would cost for you to get a health insurance policy. But these are the general policy, the general penalties. And just to get an understanding of it, if you made $100,000 and chose not to get the insurance, you'll, the 2.5% is $2,500, which is more than either of these numbers, and so you will pay $2,500. If you, if your household makes $50,000, then the 2.5% would be less than this here, and so you would pay, you would pay this number right over there. Now, the other provisions of the Affordable Care Act really are all around, well, if we want people to get insurance, we need to make it easier for them to get insurance. And the biggest deal, at least in my mind, is this one covering preexisting, preexisting conditions. Right now, if you have a preexisting condition, you have a severe form of cancer or something else, and you don't have insurance, and your employer does not cover it, or maybe you're unemployed, and you try to get insurance on your own, you're likely to either be denied, or if you are offered insurance, it will be ridiculously expensive. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
If you, if your household makes $50,000, then the 2.5% would be less than this here, and so you would pay, you would pay this number right over there. Now, the other provisions of the Affordable Care Act really are all around, well, if we want people to get insurance, we need to make it easier for them to get insurance. And the biggest deal, at least in my mind, is this one covering preexisting, preexisting conditions. Right now, if you have a preexisting condition, you have a severe form of cancer or something else, and you don't have insurance, and your employer does not cover it, or maybe you're unemployed, and you try to get insurance on your own, you're likely to either be denied, or if you are offered insurance, it will be ridiculously expensive. And that's because the insurance company knows that they're going to take a huge loss on paying all of your medical expenses. The Affordable Care Act says you can no longer base the premiums or whether or not you're going to give someone coverage based on preexisting conditions. People will be given charged premiums, which is essentially how much you pay for a policy, based on age and geography. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
Right now, if you have a preexisting condition, you have a severe form of cancer or something else, and you don't have insurance, and your employer does not cover it, or maybe you're unemployed, and you try to get insurance on your own, you're likely to either be denied, or if you are offered insurance, it will be ridiculously expensive. And that's because the insurance company knows that they're going to take a huge loss on paying all of your medical expenses. The Affordable Care Act says you can no longer base the premiums or whether or not you're going to give someone coverage based on preexisting conditions. People will be given charged premiums, which is essentially how much you pay for a policy, based on age and geography. So if you have two 40-year-olds, one of whom has the misfortune of having cancer, and the other who does not have any preexisting condition, and they both live in, let's say, in Virginia, under this, they would pay the exact amount of insurance, or they would pay the exact insurance premium. These other two points, once again, just make it easier to get insurance. Right now, if you've ever tried to get insurance, you'll see that it's hard to compare and contrast policies, really understand what you're getting and what you're not getting. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
People will be given charged premiums, which is essentially how much you pay for a policy, based on age and geography. So if you have two 40-year-olds, one of whom has the misfortune of having cancer, and the other who does not have any preexisting condition, and they both live in, let's say, in Virginia, under this, they would pay the exact amount of insurance, or they would pay the exact insurance premium. These other two points, once again, just make it easier to get insurance. Right now, if you've ever tried to get insurance, you'll see that it's hard to compare and contrast policies, really understand what you're getting and what you're not getting. And so this part of the Act says that every state will set up these insurance exchanges, which allow a little bit more transparency in terms of buying and selling policies. And then this final part right over here, and this is just an overview, I'm not covering everything, not all of the details, is the idea that, well, the government will also subsidize people getting policies, especially if they are in lower income, if they're in kind of a more difficult financial situation. Now, on top of this, if you're deciding whether or not you support things, if you say, oh, this might be a good idea, or maybe you think it's a bad idea because you don't like the government forcing things like this, there's also the issue of the cost. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
Right now, if you've ever tried to get insurance, you'll see that it's hard to compare and contrast policies, really understand what you're getting and what you're not getting. And so this part of the Act says that every state will set up these insurance exchanges, which allow a little bit more transparency in terms of buying and selling policies. And then this final part right over here, and this is just an overview, I'm not covering everything, not all of the details, is the idea that, well, the government will also subsidize people getting policies, especially if they are in lower income, if they're in kind of a more difficult financial situation. Now, on top of this, if you're deciding whether or not you support things, if you say, oh, this might be a good idea, or maybe you think it's a bad idea because you don't like the government forcing things like this, there's also the issue of the cost. And this whole thing, even though there might be savings in terms of lower medical care because people will get preventative health care and things like that, there is still a net cost to this. And this is going to be primarily paid for by increasing the amount, the essential Medicare tax for high net, for people with larger incomes. So it's really going to be larger Medicare revenues, Medicare revenues or Medicare taxes on people with larger incomes, larger incomes. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
Now, on top of this, if you're deciding whether or not you support things, if you say, oh, this might be a good idea, or maybe you think it's a bad idea because you don't like the government forcing things like this, there's also the issue of the cost. And this whole thing, even though there might be savings in terms of lower medical care because people will get preventative health care and things like that, there is still a net cost to this. And this is going to be primarily paid for by increasing the amount, the essential Medicare tax for high net, for people with larger incomes. So it's really going to be larger Medicare revenues, Medicare revenues or Medicare taxes on people with larger incomes, larger incomes. And this is estimated to generate about 200 billion a year, 210, whatever, there are different estimates here. But that's gonna bear most of the cost. And on top of that, there are some extra fees on insurers, and there's what's called an excise tax, which is a tax that tends to be a large tax on a specific product on what they call Cadillac policies, these policies that are very, very, very generous to kind of make up some of the cost of all of this. | PPACA or Obamacare American civics US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
Immigrant residents seeking naturalization face barriers throughout the process, and it's only become more difficult over time. Immigrants face strict requirements to become lawful permanent residents, and when they try to become U.S. citizens, they face increased filing costs and long processing times for their applications. Certain groups of immigrants get priority when they apply for lawful permanent resident status. As the Pew Research Center reported, in 2015, 44% of green cards went to immigrants who were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and 20% went to immigrants who were extended family members of citizens and lawful permanent residents. Having special skills, like being a talented doctor or doing innovative research, or special talents, like being a gifted athlete, means you're in the most prioritized group for employment-based preferences for lawful permanent residents. If you don't have special skills or talents, you can still be eligible for employment-based residency, but you have to have an employer willing to complete all the necessary paperwork with the federal government. As that is an added cost, some employers refuse to hire people from outside the United States. | Challenges of naturalization Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
As the Pew Research Center reported, in 2015, 44% of green cards went to immigrants who were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and 20% went to immigrants who were extended family members of citizens and lawful permanent residents. Having special skills, like being a talented doctor or doing innovative research, or special talents, like being a gifted athlete, means you're in the most prioritized group for employment-based preferences for lawful permanent residents. If you don't have special skills or talents, you can still be eligible for employment-based residency, but you have to have an employer willing to complete all the necessary paperwork with the federal government. As that is an added cost, some employers refuse to hire people from outside the United States. So if you don't have any specialized skills, a job offer, an employer willing to file paperwork for labor certification, a parent with lawful permanent resident or citizenship status, it's difficult to get lawful permanent status. The challenges continue throughout the naturalization process. It takes years for lawful permanent residents to become American citizens. | Challenges of naturalization Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
As that is an added cost, some employers refuse to hire people from outside the United States. So if you don't have any specialized skills, a job offer, an employer willing to file paperwork for labor certification, a parent with lawful permanent resident or citizenship status, it's difficult to get lawful permanent status. The challenges continue throughout the naturalization process. It takes years for lawful permanent residents to become American citizens. Remember that even to apply for naturalization, lawful permanent residents have to have lived in the United States for at least five years, but the process can take much longer than that. The median time it takes for lawful permanent residents to become citizens is actually eight years. Part of the reason that it takes so long is because of how long it takes to process a naturalization application. | Challenges of naturalization Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
It takes years for lawful permanent residents to become American citizens. Remember that even to apply for naturalization, lawful permanent residents have to have lived in the United States for at least five years, but the process can take much longer than that. The median time it takes for lawful permanent residents to become citizens is actually eight years. Part of the reason that it takes so long is because of how long it takes to process a naturalization application. The federal government has experienced a significant backlog of applications waiting for processing, and the average time to process a citizenship application has doubled since 2012. This is due to a surge in applications and stricter scrutiny on those applications. And the costs associated with filing a naturalization application have also increased significantly. | Challenges of naturalization Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Part of the reason that it takes so long is because of how long it takes to process a naturalization application. The federal government has experienced a significant backlog of applications waiting for processing, and the average time to process a citizenship application has doubled since 2012. This is due to a surge in applications and stricter scrutiny on those applications. And the costs associated with filing a naturalization application have also increased significantly. Let's take a look at this chart. In 1985, it only cost $35 for a person to file an application. Now it costs over $1,000 to file. | Challenges of naturalization Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And the costs associated with filing a naturalization application have also increased significantly. Let's take a look at this chart. In 1985, it only cost $35 for a person to file an application. Now it costs over $1,000 to file. Why does it cost so much more? USCIS argues that the increased fees are necessary to offset the growing cost of processing applications and deterring fraud. And this graph doesn't cover all of the costs an immigrant might incur during the naturalization process, since it doesn't include any of the costs associated with getting a lawyer to advise them or any classes that they might need to take in order to learn English or U.S. civics. | Challenges of naturalization Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. We've become familiar with the Miranda warnings given to suspects in police custody through movies and TV shows. But who was Miranda? And what do these warnings really mean? This is Kim from Khan Academy, and today we're digging into the 1966 Supreme Court case, Miranda versus Arizona. To learn more about the case, I spoke with two experts. Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, who's written extensively about the Supreme Court. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And what do these warnings really mean? This is Kim from Khan Academy, and today we're digging into the 1966 Supreme Court case, Miranda versus Arizona. To learn more about the case, I spoke with two experts. Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, who's written extensively about the Supreme Court. Paul Cassell is the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Utah School of Law. He's a leading researcher on criminal procedure and crime victims' rights. So Jeff, if we actually go back to the time of this case, what was going on at this time in constitutional law? | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, who's written extensively about the Supreme Court. Paul Cassell is the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Utah School of Law. He's a leading researcher on criminal procedure and crime victims' rights. So Jeff, if we actually go back to the time of this case, what was going on at this time in constitutional law? Why was the Miranda case so important? The Miranda case was hugely important because it represented the high watermark of the Warren Court's criminal procedure revolution. The 1960s were a time when there was a lot of concern about the third degree. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So Jeff, if we actually go back to the time of this case, what was going on at this time in constitutional law? Why was the Miranda case so important? The Miranda case was hugely important because it represented the high watermark of the Warren Court's criminal procedure revolution. The 1960s were a time when there was a lot of concern about the third degree. Southern states were interrogating African-American defendants in ways that struck many people as unfair. But the Supreme Court took a long time to respond. Historically, the admissibility of confessions into a trial had been determined by what is called the voluntariness test. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The 1960s were a time when there was a lot of concern about the third degree. Southern states were interrogating African-American defendants in ways that struck many people as unfair. But the Supreme Court took a long time to respond. Historically, the admissibility of confessions into a trial had been determined by what is called the voluntariness test. And that required a judge to decide, was the confession voluntarily given or had the police used unfair or overly aggressive tactics to extract it? But making those kinds of determinations had proven challenging for some courts. And so there was interest in coming up with, I guess what you might call a bright line rule, a single test for determining whether confessions were or were not voluntary. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Historically, the admissibility of confessions into a trial had been determined by what is called the voluntariness test. And that required a judge to decide, was the confession voluntarily given or had the police used unfair or overly aggressive tactics to extract it? But making those kinds of determinations had proven challenging for some courts. And so there was interest in coming up with, I guess what you might call a bright line rule, a single test for determining whether confessions were or were not voluntary. The court didn't really settle on a standard for deciding whether or not a confession was voluntary or not. A test emerged, and it was called the totality of the circumstances test, which basically gave judges a lot of discretion to weigh different factors. Was the defendant well-educated? | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And so there was interest in coming up with, I guess what you might call a bright line rule, a single test for determining whether confessions were or were not voluntary. The court didn't really settle on a standard for deciding whether or not a confession was voluntary or not. A test emerged, and it was called the totality of the circumstances test, which basically gave judges a lot of discretion to weigh different factors. Was the defendant well-educated? What was his physical health? His emotional characteristics? But lots of people were uncomfortable with the amorphousness of this test. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Was the defendant well-educated? What was his physical health? His emotional characteristics? But lots of people were uncomfortable with the amorphousness of this test. And at a time when there's renewed concern in the 1960s about the unfairness of the third degree, there's pressure to come up with a crisper and more constitutionally-rooted way of ensuring that confessions are not only involuntary in the sense of not being beaten out of a suspect, but not involuntary in the sense of not reflecting the subtle, coercive pressures of the confession room. So Miranda was arrested on suspicion of rape. And at the time, the law on confessions was somewhat in flux. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But lots of people were uncomfortable with the amorphousness of this test. And at a time when there's renewed concern in the 1960s about the unfairness of the third degree, there's pressure to come up with a crisper and more constitutionally-rooted way of ensuring that confessions are not only involuntary in the sense of not being beaten out of a suspect, but not involuntary in the sense of not reflecting the subtle, coercive pressures of the confession room. So Miranda was arrested on suspicion of rape. And at the time, the law on confessions was somewhat in flux. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and then ultimately appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to review his case and determine the issue. So who was Ernesto Miranda? What was his background? | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And at the time, the law on confessions was somewhat in flux. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and then ultimately appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to review his case and determine the issue. So who was Ernesto Miranda? What was his background? Ernesto Miranda was a 23-year-old Hispanic man. He was accused of raping a woman called Patricia. That was the pseudonym for her real name. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
What was his background? Ernesto Miranda was a 23-year-old Hispanic man. He was accused of raping a woman called Patricia. That was the pseudonym for her real name. She was basically forced into a car after getting off of a bus and assaulted in this terrible way. Miranda was a laborer. He was poorly educated, I think it's fair to say. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
That was the pseudonym for her real name. She was basically forced into a car after getting off of a bus and assaulted in this terrible way. Miranda was a laborer. He was poorly educated, I think it's fair to say. And I think it's also important to remember that he was a rapist. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that he, in fact, had sexually assaulted a young 18-year-old girl as she was walking home from work late one night. He grabbed her off the street, threw her into the back of his car, and drove her out into the desert and raped her. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
He was poorly educated, I think it's fair to say. And I think it's also important to remember that he was a rapist. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that he, in fact, had sexually assaulted a young 18-year-old girl as she was walking home from work late one night. He grabbed her off the street, threw her into the back of his car, and drove her out into the desert and raped her. And so those are all things that I think are important to recall when we talk about the Miranda decision. And he was identified after a friend of hers saw a car similar to the one that she described a week later, and the police tracked the registration down to Miranda's girlfriend, who identified him. So the police got the report of the crime from the victim, and they also had a report of an unusual car that was involved. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
He grabbed her off the street, threw her into the back of his car, and drove her out into the desert and raped her. And so those are all things that I think are important to recall when we talk about the Miranda decision. And he was identified after a friend of hers saw a car similar to the one that she described a week later, and the police tracked the registration down to Miranda's girlfriend, who identified him. So the police got the report of the crime from the victim, and they also had a report of an unusual car that was involved. And so eventually, they were able to identify a car that was similar to that described by the victim that came back as registered to Miranda. And so they picked him up for questioning. They took him into the station house. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So the police got the report of the crime from the victim, and they also had a report of an unusual car that was involved. And so eventually, they were able to identify a car that was similar to that described by the victim that came back as registered to Miranda. And so they picked him up for questioning. They took him into the station house. He denied having any involvement. But then the police pulled the ploy. They had the victim come and look at Miranda, along with a couple of other people in a lineup, a group of similarly appearing people. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
They took him into the station house. He denied having any involvement. But then the police pulled the ploy. They had the victim come and look at Miranda, along with a couple of other people in a lineup, a group of similarly appearing people. And the victim thought that maybe Miranda was the person who had committed the crime, but she wasn't sure. So the police went back to Miranda, and they said, well, she's identified you. And Miranda at that point said, well, I guess I better tell you what happened then. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
They had the victim come and look at Miranda, along with a couple of other people in a lineup, a group of similarly appearing people. And the victim thought that maybe Miranda was the person who had committed the crime, but she wasn't sure. So the police went back to Miranda, and they said, well, she's identified you. And Miranda at that point said, well, I guess I better tell you what happened then. And he made a confession to the rape, as well as to some other crimes as well. The question was whether this confession was consistent with the Fifth Amendment. He might or might not have met the totality of the circumstances test, as Justice Harlan noted in his dissent. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And Miranda at that point said, well, I guess I better tell you what happened then. And he made a confession to the rape, as well as to some other crimes as well. The question was whether this confession was consistent with the Fifth Amendment. He might or might not have met the totality of the circumstances test, as Justice Harlan noted in his dissent. Miranda was 23 years old, indigent, educated to the extent of completing half the ninth grade, had an emotional illness of the schizophrenic type. And the question was whether he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of these rights. But the Supreme Court decided not to stick to that old totality of the circumstances test and rethink the entire way that confessions should be evaluated. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
He might or might not have met the totality of the circumstances test, as Justice Harlan noted in his dissent. Miranda was 23 years old, indigent, educated to the extent of completing half the ninth grade, had an emotional illness of the schizophrenic type. And the question was whether he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of these rights. But the Supreme Court decided not to stick to that old totality of the circumstances test and rethink the entire way that confessions should be evaluated. So the Supreme Court was kind of looking for an example case to try to figure out what this line should be about confessions and how the police should treat suspects. Why did they choose this case in particular? The court chose the Miranda case because it came up at the right time, at a time when all of the judges were increasingly impatient with this totality of the circumstances test, including the great liberal textualist Hugo Black, who had been a opponent of the voluntariness test because he just thought it was too subjective. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But the Supreme Court decided not to stick to that old totality of the circumstances test and rethink the entire way that confessions should be evaluated. So the Supreme Court was kind of looking for an example case to try to figure out what this line should be about confessions and how the police should treat suspects. Why did they choose this case in particular? The court chose the Miranda case because it came up at the right time, at a time when all of the judges were increasingly impatient with this totality of the circumstances test, including the great liberal textualist Hugo Black, who had been a opponent of the voluntariness test because he just thought it was too subjective. So they took the case. It certainly was not a sympathetic one in the sense that Miranda was not the most sympathetic defendant, but the court thought the time was right. And they decided in Miranda to rethink Fifth Amendment law. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The court chose the Miranda case because it came up at the right time, at a time when all of the judges were increasingly impatient with this totality of the circumstances test, including the great liberal textualist Hugo Black, who had been a opponent of the voluntariness test because he just thought it was too subjective. So they took the case. It certainly was not a sympathetic one in the sense that Miranda was not the most sympathetic defendant, but the court thought the time was right. And they decided in Miranda to rethink Fifth Amendment law. Wow, so during his case, what did Miranda argue? So why did he think that his confession should be thrown out? Well, Miranda's case attracted a lot of attention because everyone knew the Supreme Court was very interested in the law of confessions and trying to come up with a new rule for addressing some of the issues. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And they decided in Miranda to rethink Fifth Amendment law. Wow, so during his case, what did Miranda argue? So why did he think that his confession should be thrown out? Well, Miranda's case attracted a lot of attention because everyone knew the Supreme Court was very interested in the law of confessions and trying to come up with a new rule for addressing some of the issues. And so he had a very good lawyer, John Flynn. Flynn, interestingly enough, argued that Miranda's right to counsel had been violated. It was only the police and Miranda who were in the interview room talking to each other, and there was no lawyer there. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, Miranda's case attracted a lot of attention because everyone knew the Supreme Court was very interested in the law of confessions and trying to come up with a new rule for addressing some of the issues. And so he had a very good lawyer, John Flynn. Flynn, interestingly enough, argued that Miranda's right to counsel had been violated. It was only the police and Miranda who were in the interview room talking to each other, and there was no lawyer there. And so Flynn argued that this violated Miranda's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, as the case developed and ultimately the opinion was released, the Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Amendment argument and instead went with a Fifth Amendment argument. The court said that what had been violated by the procedures here was Miranda's right against being compelled to incriminate himself. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
It was only the police and Miranda who were in the interview room talking to each other, and there was no lawyer there. And so Flynn argued that this violated Miranda's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, as the case developed and ultimately the opinion was released, the Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Amendment argument and instead went with a Fifth Amendment argument. The court said that what had been violated by the procedures here was Miranda's right against being compelled to incriminate himself. And the court said that there needed to be certain warnings given to Miranda and certain procedures followed to make sure that confessions given by suspects like him were admissible in court. Flynn never said the confession was compelled in the sense that it was coerced by threats or promises or compulsion or gunpoint, but the fact that he gave the confession without knowing his rights to silence or having an attorney present while in police custody made him, in effect, surrender a right that he didn't fully realize and appreciate. The state was represented by a very prominent attorney, Telford Taylor, and he said that you should retain the totality of the circumstances test and not change the law. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The court said that what had been violated by the procedures here was Miranda's right against being compelled to incriminate himself. And the court said that there needed to be certain warnings given to Miranda and certain procedures followed to make sure that confessions given by suspects like him were admissible in court. Flynn never said the confession was compelled in the sense that it was coerced by threats or promises or compulsion or gunpoint, but the fact that he gave the confession without knowing his rights to silence or having an attorney present while in police custody made him, in effect, surrender a right that he didn't fully realize and appreciate. The state was represented by a very prominent attorney, Telford Taylor, and he said that you should retain the totality of the circumstances test and not change the law. But the Supreme Court disagreed, and on June 13th, 1966, it announced its five to four decision in the Miranda case. So what actually happened to Ernesto Miranda after the Supreme Court case? Well, the fallout from the decision was interesting. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The state was represented by a very prominent attorney, Telford Taylor, and he said that you should retain the totality of the circumstances test and not change the law. But the Supreme Court disagreed, and on June 13th, 1966, it announced its five to four decision in the Miranda case. So what actually happened to Ernesto Miranda after the Supreme Court case? Well, the fallout from the decision was interesting. Miranda assumed that he was going to be released because the Supreme Court had ruled his confession inadmissible, and that was a pivotal piece of evidence without which the prosecution was not going to be able to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And so Miranda's father ordered a bottle of whiskey that they were going to open to celebrate his release. But unfortunately for Miranda, and I suspect fortunately for the citizens of Phoenix, Miranda had made a few statements along the way. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, the fallout from the decision was interesting. Miranda assumed that he was going to be released because the Supreme Court had ruled his confession inadmissible, and that was a pivotal piece of evidence without which the prosecution was not going to be able to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And so Miranda's father ordered a bottle of whiskey that they were going to open to celebrate his release. But unfortunately for Miranda, and I suspect fortunately for the citizens of Phoenix, Miranda had made a few statements along the way. He had threatened his common law wife that he was going to get out and was going to come back and try to take the kids away from her. And she went to police and reported that Miranda had confessed the crime to her. And of course, a confession to a private citizen, a common law wife, is not the same thing as a confession to a police officer. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But unfortunately for Miranda, and I suspect fortunately for the citizens of Phoenix, Miranda had made a few statements along the way. He had threatened his common law wife that he was going to get out and was going to come back and try to take the kids away from her. And she went to police and reported that Miranda had confessed the crime to her. And of course, a confession to a private citizen, a common law wife, is not the same thing as a confession to a police officer. And so the case was retried. Miranda's confession to his common law wife was used in evidence against him. Miranda was convicted, and I guess it's fair to say that bottle of whiskey went unopened. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And of course, a confession to a private citizen, a common law wife, is not the same thing as a confession to a police officer. And so the case was retried. Miranda's confession to his common law wife was used in evidence against him. Miranda was convicted, and I guess it's fair to say that bottle of whiskey went unopened. All right, this is very interesting because we see this a lot on TV procedurals and also just in, you know, our sort of everyday policing. So how is this Miranda rule applied today? Has it developed at all over time? | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Miranda was convicted, and I guess it's fair to say that bottle of whiskey went unopened. All right, this is very interesting because we see this a lot on TV procedurals and also just in, you know, our sort of everyday policing. So how is this Miranda rule applied today? Has it developed at all over time? Yes, what the Supreme Court said was basically two things were going to have to happen before a confession given by someone who was in police custody could be admitted at a trial. The first is that the suspect would have to be given Miranda warnings, that is, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Has it developed at all over time? Yes, what the Supreme Court said was basically two things were going to have to happen before a confession given by someone who was in police custody could be admitted at a trial. The first is that the suspect would have to be given Miranda warnings, that is, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you. You have a right to an attorney before you answer any questions. And if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. So those are the famous Miranda warnings. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Anything you say can be used against you. You have a right to an attorney before you answer any questions. And if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. So those are the famous Miranda warnings. And I think a lot of people have seen those on TV shows or other programs. And there is a second feature, though, of Miranda that I think is much more important and in some ways much more harmful to society. It's what is known as the waiver requirement. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So those are the famous Miranda warnings. And I think a lot of people have seen those on TV shows or other programs. And there is a second feature, though, of Miranda that I think is much more important and in some ways much more harmful to society. It's what is known as the waiver requirement. Police officers must ask a suspect, do you agree to answer questions? And if the suspect says no, then the police can't ask that suspect any questions, no matter how briefly, no matter how reasonable the questions might be. And so it's this warning and waiver procedure that the Supreme Court put in place. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
It's what is known as the waiver requirement. Police officers must ask a suspect, do you agree to answer questions? And if the suspect says no, then the police can't ask that suspect any questions, no matter how briefly, no matter how reasonable the questions might be. And so it's this warning and waiver procedure that the Supreme Court put in place. So that core right remains the law of the land. So there are some situations where Miranda is not in place. One of them is if a suspect is not in custody. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And so it's this warning and waiver procedure that the Supreme Court put in place. So that core right remains the law of the land. So there are some situations where Miranda is not in place. One of them is if a suspect is not in custody. For example, if the police are responding to a crime and question people on the scene there, that's not a situation where there is what's known in the Miranda opinion as the inherent compulsion of police questioning. That's just ordinary citizen-police interaction and special warnings aren't required there. Also, if suspects agree to come down to the police station and talk, there's no requirement of a Miranda warning. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
One of them is if a suspect is not in custody. For example, if the police are responding to a crime and question people on the scene there, that's not a situation where there is what's known in the Miranda opinion as the inherent compulsion of police questioning. That's just ordinary citizen-police interaction and special warnings aren't required there. Also, if suspects agree to come down to the police station and talk, there's no requirement of a Miranda warning. And in very rare situations, if there is an extremely pressing public safety need, police officers need not give Miranda warnings. For example, if they've apprehended a terrorist who's hidden a bomb, police can ask questions without giving the Miranda warning. How has the Miranda case and later cases that interpret Miranda reflect the way that the court balances individual liberty and the constitutional rights of defendants with public safety and the needs of law enforcement? | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Also, if suspects agree to come down to the police station and talk, there's no requirement of a Miranda warning. And in very rare situations, if there is an extremely pressing public safety need, police officers need not give Miranda warnings. For example, if they've apprehended a terrorist who's hidden a bomb, police can ask questions without giving the Miranda warning. How has the Miranda case and later cases that interpret Miranda reflect the way that the court balances individual liberty and the constitutional rights of defendants with public safety and the needs of law enforcement? When the Supreme Court looked at the Miranda case, there were two competing concerns at play. One was to make sure that suspects like Miranda were treated fairly, but the other was to make sure that law enforcement agencies could effectively investigate crime. And what resulted out of Miranda was, I think it's fair to say, something of a compromise decision. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
How has the Miranda case and later cases that interpret Miranda reflect the way that the court balances individual liberty and the constitutional rights of defendants with public safety and the needs of law enforcement? When the Supreme Court looked at the Miranda case, there were two competing concerns at play. One was to make sure that suspects like Miranda were treated fairly, but the other was to make sure that law enforcement agencies could effectively investigate crime. And what resulted out of Miranda was, I think it's fair to say, something of a compromise decision. There were some who argued that police officers should never be able to question suspects once they were taken into custody, that suspects should receive a lawyer. And of course, a lawyer would immediately tell a suspect, don't say anything at all. Miranda didn't go that far. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And what resulted out of Miranda was, I think it's fair to say, something of a compromise decision. There were some who argued that police officers should never be able to question suspects once they were taken into custody, that suspects should receive a lawyer. And of course, a lawyer would immediately tell a suspect, don't say anything at all. Miranda didn't go that far. And I think the reason it didn't go that far is there are very significant countervailing concerns. A lot of crimes cannot be solved unless a suspect is willing to give some statements and provide information that police can check out. The Miranda case itself is a good illustration of that. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Miranda didn't go that far. And I think the reason it didn't go that far is there are very significant countervailing concerns. A lot of crimes cannot be solved unless a suspect is willing to give some statements and provide information that police can check out. The Miranda case itself is a good illustration of that. The victim in that case, because the crime was committed at nighttime and in the dark, was unable to give a positive identification of Miranda. And it was only when police were able to get a statement from him that they were in a position to move forward and prosecute him and to take a dangerous rapist off the streets of Phoenix, Arizona. It's, listeners should definitely check out Professor Cassell's study written with Richard Fowles in 1998 called Handcuffing the Cops, which looked at FBI data for crime clearance rates in the two years after Miranda, which fell significantly. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The Miranda case itself is a good illustration of that. The victim in that case, because the crime was committed at nighttime and in the dark, was unable to give a positive identification of Miranda. And it was only when police were able to get a statement from him that they were in a position to move forward and prosecute him and to take a dangerous rapist off the streets of Phoenix, Arizona. It's, listeners should definitely check out Professor Cassell's study written with Richard Fowles in 1998 called Handcuffing the Cops, which looked at FBI data for crime clearance rates in the two years after Miranda, which fell significantly. And they concluded that Miranda warnings were the main cause of this decline. But it's really important to stress that other scholars have questioned the study and have also noted that even if Miranda initially made it more difficult for officials to interrogate suspects, the police have since adjusted to Miranda. In fact, they've come often to embrace it, concluding that basically saying the magic words and Mirandizing suspects frees up the police to employ a range of sophisticated strategies to get people to confess anyway. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
It's, listeners should definitely check out Professor Cassell's study written with Richard Fowles in 1998 called Handcuffing the Cops, which looked at FBI data for crime clearance rates in the two years after Miranda, which fell significantly. And they concluded that Miranda warnings were the main cause of this decline. But it's really important to stress that other scholars have questioned the study and have also noted that even if Miranda initially made it more difficult for officials to interrogate suspects, the police have since adjusted to Miranda. In fact, they've come often to embrace it, concluding that basically saying the magic words and Mirandizing suspects frees up the police to employ a range of sophisticated strategies to get people to confess anyway. And for this reason, when the Miranda case was reaffirmed, far from being upset, the police in many cases welcomed the certainty that Miranda provides. So for all these reasons, I think it's fair to say just descriptively that Miranda, regardless of the empirical dispute about whether or not it has discouraged confessions, has been accepted by law enforcement by and large. It's been affirmed by the Supreme Court and at least for the immediate future, it's here to stay. | Miranda v. Arizona Civil liberties and civil rights US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |