Sentence
stringlengths 118
2.7k
| video_title
stringlengths 38
107
|
|---|---|
And this graphic here, which comes from the Campaign Finance Institute, and it's based on data from the Federal Election Committee, it clearly shows how the costs of congressional campaigns have increased dramatically since 1986. If you look at nominal dollars for the House of Representatives, so this is just the actual dollar amount, you see it's almost grown by a factor of four or five. But even if you adjust it for inflation, the cost has doubled for your average House campaign. And you see a similar trend in the Senate campaigns, where even adjusted for inflation, the cost of your average Senate campaign has increased by 50%. Now, this also does not capture all of the outside money, things like Super PACs and whatever else. If you fast forward to 2016, your average Senate campaign costs a little over $10 million. But there's about that much money, approximately $10 million, that also comes in from things like Super PACs. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And you see a similar trend in the Senate campaigns, where even adjusted for inflation, the cost of your average Senate campaign has increased by 50%. Now, this also does not capture all of the outside money, things like Super PACs and whatever else. If you fast forward to 2016, your average Senate campaign costs a little over $10 million. But there's about that much money, approximately $10 million, that also comes in from things like Super PACs. And so it's totally near $20 million for a Senate campaign on average. And so particularly competitive campaigns can be a lot more than even that. And if you wanna talk about really big money, you just have to look at presidential campaigns. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But there's about that much money, approximately $10 million, that also comes in from things like Super PACs. And so it's totally near $20 million for a Senate campaign on average. And so particularly competitive campaigns can be a lot more than even that. And if you wanna talk about really big money, you just have to look at presidential campaigns. So this right over here is the last presidential campaign in 2016. And you can see that Hillary Clinton's candidate committee money was over half a billion dollars. She actually had a good bit more than Donald Trump. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And if you wanna talk about really big money, you just have to look at presidential campaigns. So this right over here is the last presidential campaign in 2016. And you can see that Hillary Clinton's candidate committee money was over half a billion dollars. She actually had a good bit more than Donald Trump. And she had a good bit more outside money. But the entire Hillary Clinton campaign had nearly $800 million budget. And if you combine Hillary Clinton plus Donald Trump, you have a total of $1.2 billion for the 2016 campaign. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
She actually had a good bit more than Donald Trump. And she had a good bit more outside money. But the entire Hillary Clinton campaign had nearly $800 million budget. And if you combine Hillary Clinton plus Donald Trump, you have a total of $1.2 billion for the 2016 campaign. In 1980, the total was 92 million. It's more than a 12-fold increase. And even if you were to adjust for inflation, which these numbers are not, but even if you did, you would see a several-fold increase in the cost of a campaign. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And if you combine Hillary Clinton plus Donald Trump, you have a total of $1.2 billion for the 2016 campaign. In 1980, the total was 92 million. It's more than a 12-fold increase. And even if you were to adjust for inflation, which these numbers are not, but even if you did, you would see a several-fold increase in the cost of a campaign. So when you look at these types of numbers, there's a couple of interesting questions that come up. One is what is the money for? Money for what? | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And even if you were to adjust for inflation, which these numbers are not, but even if you did, you would see a several-fold increase in the cost of a campaign. So when you look at these types of numbers, there's a couple of interesting questions that come up. One is what is the money for? Money for what? Well, there's many answers to that. One is that, especially in a presidential campaign, and to a lesser degree in a congressional campaign, the campaigns have to pay professional full-time staffers. So campaign, campaign staff. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Money for what? Well, there's many answers to that. One is that, especially in a presidential campaign, and to a lesser degree in a congressional campaign, the campaigns have to pay professional full-time staffers. So campaign, campaign staff. You'll often have a lot of volunteers. But for example, Hillary Clinton in 2016 had approximately 4,200 people on payroll, where about 800 people were working directly for her campaign, another 400 with the Democratic National Committee, and roughly 3,000 people with state Democratic parties in the battleground states. And beyond on the staff, you also might have paid political consultants. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So campaign, campaign staff. You'll often have a lot of volunteers. But for example, Hillary Clinton in 2016 had approximately 4,200 people on payroll, where about 800 people were working directly for her campaign, another 400 with the Democratic National Committee, and roughly 3,000 people with state Democratic parties in the battleground states. And beyond on the staff, you also might have paid political consultants. And what do all of these people do? Well, they come up with a campaign strategy. Some of them will do polling to understand the sentiment in the larger population on specific issues or on the candidate. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And beyond on the staff, you also might have paid political consultants. And what do all of these people do? Well, they come up with a campaign strategy. Some of them will do polling to understand the sentiment in the larger population on specific issues or on the candidate. And they will do a lot of campaign advertising and marketing, advertising. And so the staff will think about, well, what kind of advertising do we need to do? And then a large chunk of the money actually goes to the advertising itself, advertising, especially in mass media, if we're thinking about radio and television. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Some of them will do polling to understand the sentiment in the larger population on specific issues or on the candidate. And they will do a lot of campaign advertising and marketing, advertising. And so the staff will think about, well, what kind of advertising do we need to do? And then a large chunk of the money actually goes to the advertising itself, advertising, especially in mass media, if we're thinking about radio and television. Now, an interesting question is, given that in the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by so much, how was he able to actually win that campaign? Well, there's several possible explanations to that. One is that Donald Trump was very effective at getting himself attention that he didn't have to spend money for. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And then a large chunk of the money actually goes to the advertising itself, advertising, especially in mass media, if we're thinking about radio and television. Now, an interesting question is, given that in the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by so much, how was he able to actually win that campaign? Well, there's several possible explanations to that. One is that Donald Trump was very effective at getting himself attention that he didn't have to spend money for. On top of that, a trend that has emerged really since the 2008 Obama campaign is the increasing use of social media in campaigns. Before social media became a major player, most of that energy really was in mass media advertising. But now with social media, you could cater a message to specific groups. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
One is that Donald Trump was very effective at getting himself attention that he didn't have to spend money for. On top of that, a trend that has emerged really since the 2008 Obama campaign is the increasing use of social media in campaigns. Before social media became a major player, most of that energy really was in mass media advertising. But now with social media, you could cater a message to specific groups. You could focus your message. You could activate your base more. And so more and more, social media, which is currently a lot less expensive than, say, TV advertising, is becoming a bigger and bigger part of campaigns. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But now with social media, you could cater a message to specific groups. You could focus your message. You could activate your base more. And so more and more, social media, which is currently a lot less expensive than, say, TV advertising, is becoming a bigger and bigger part of campaigns. Now, a last answer to the question of why so much money is that you have long campaigns in the United States. In some countries, the campaigns might be anywhere from two to six weeks. In the United States, the formal campaign, if you think about the first primaries, it's in February of an election year in a presidential cycle, and then the election is in November. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And so more and more, social media, which is currently a lot less expensive than, say, TV advertising, is becoming a bigger and bigger part of campaigns. Now, a last answer to the question of why so much money is that you have long campaigns in the United States. In some countries, the campaigns might be anywhere from two to six weeks. In the United States, the formal campaign, if you think about the first primaries, it's in February of an election year in a presidential cycle, and then the election is in November. So you're looking at roughly nine to 10 months from the first primary and caucuses to the election. But well before the first caucus, you're going to have the various candidates raising money and trying to get name recognition. And so the actual campaign and money raising for a lot of these candidates might be closer to two years. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
In the United States, the formal campaign, if you think about the first primaries, it's in February of an election year in a presidential cycle, and then the election is in November. So you're looking at roughly nine to 10 months from the first primary and caucuses to the election. But well before the first caucus, you're going to have the various candidates raising money and trying to get name recognition. And so the actual campaign and money raising for a lot of these candidates might be closer to two years. And so you can imagine, if you're spending two years with consultants, trying to do advertising, just so you have a showing in some of those first caucuses and primaries, well, that's going to cost you a lot of money. Now, it's for you to think about whether these are good or bad things. Many people would argue that having such a long election cycle doesn't allow a lot of focus on other things, especially if someone's the incumbent. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And so the actual campaign and money raising for a lot of these candidates might be closer to two years. And so you can imagine, if you're spending two years with consultants, trying to do advertising, just so you have a showing in some of those first caucuses and primaries, well, that's going to cost you a lot of money. Now, it's for you to think about whether these are good or bad things. Many people would argue that having such a long election cycle doesn't allow a lot of focus on other things, especially if someone's the incumbent. If they're campaigning the whole time, can they even govern? And then another argument against all of this money is it might put too much influence in the hands of people who can give money. I'll let you think about that. | Cost and duration of modern campaigns US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
I am pro ABCs and 4123s! Plus, I promise I have no skeletons in my closet. I do not even have one in my body. Hey Grover, what are you doing? Oh, hello there Sal Khan! I am just running for President of the United States of America. I heard there was an upcoming election, so I figured, eh, why not? | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Hey Grover, what are you doing? Oh, hello there Sal Khan! I am just running for President of the United States of America. I heard there was an upcoming election, so I figured, eh, why not? Well that's great, Grover. Yeah! Maybe we can help more people vote. | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
I heard there was an upcoming election, so I figured, eh, why not? Well that's great, Grover. Yeah! Maybe we can help more people vote. Oh, that would be terrific! So, exactly how many votes do I need to win? Well, you know about the Electoral College, right? | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Maybe we can help more people vote. Oh, that would be terrific! So, exactly how many votes do I need to win? Well, you know about the Electoral College, right? Of course, Sal baby! I know exactly what the Electrical... Electoral... | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, you know about the Electoral College, right? Of course, Sal baby! I know exactly what the Electrical... Electoral... Electoral College is. Great. So why don't we explain it together for those who don't know? | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Electoral... Electoral College is. Great. So why don't we explain it together for those who don't know? Oh, why certainly! What a brilliant idea! Um... Why don't you start us off? | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So why don't we explain it together for those who don't know? Oh, why certainly! What a brilliant idea! Um... Why don't you start us off? Sure. In a direct democracy, I as a citizen will vote for a candidate, and whichever candidate has the most popular votes in the country, they will become President. But we do not have a direct democracy. | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Um... Why don't you start us off? Sure. In a direct democracy, I as a citizen will vote for a candidate, and whichever candidate has the most popular votes in the country, they will become President. But we do not have a direct democracy. We have an indirect democracy. So what happens is, is I vote in my state, I live in California, and whichever candidate gets the most votes in California will get all of California's 55 electoral votes. And that's true in most states. | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But we do not have a direct democracy. We have an indirect democracy. So what happens is, is I vote in my state, I live in California, and whichever candidate gets the most votes in California will get all of California's 55 electoral votes. And that's true in most states. Whoever gets the most votes in that state gets all of the votes for that state. And that number comes from the number of Congress people California has. Um, I am not following. | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And that's true in most states. Whoever gets the most votes in that state gets all of the votes for that state. And that number comes from the number of Congress people California has. Um, I am not following. So how can I explain it in a way that you might understand? Chickens. I know chickens! | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Um, I am not following. So how can I explain it in a way that you might understand? Chickens. I know chickens! Chickens! They are my biggest demo! Okay, chickens. | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
I know chickens! Chickens! They are my biggest demo! Okay, chickens. So instead of electors, we'll say chickens. Instead of the electoral college, I'll say chicken college. Okay, that I can follow. | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Okay, chickens. So instead of electors, we'll say chickens. Instead of the electoral college, I'll say chicken college. Okay, that I can follow. Okay. The number of chicken votes for each state is equal to the number of Congress people for that state. In every state? | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Okay, that I can follow. Okay. The number of chicken votes for each state is equal to the number of Congress people for that state. In every state? Yes. From California to the New York Island? From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters? | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
In every state? Yes. From California to the New York Island? From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters? Yes. The 50 states. Ah! | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters? Yes. The 50 states. Ah! And so there are a total of 538 chicken votes in the chicken college. For example, Florida has 29 chicken votes. And that's the same as the 29 Congress people that they have. | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Ah! And so there are a total of 538 chicken votes in the chicken college. For example, Florida has 29 chicken votes. And that's the same as the 29 Congress people that they have. Two senators and 27 representatives. Oh, hello there, chickens! Okay then. | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And that's the same as the 29 Congress people that they have. Two senators and 27 representatives. Oh, hello there, chickens! Okay then. So how do I, candidate Grover, win the presidency? Well, since there are 538 chicken votes in total, you just have to get more than half of those. More than half? | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Okay then. So how do I, candidate Grover, win the presidency? Well, since there are 538 chicken votes in total, you just have to get more than half of those. More than half? Hmm. Let me see here. Uh, one, carry the two, divide it by eight. | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
More than half? Hmm. Let me see here. Uh, one, carry the two, divide it by eight. Grover, we know the actual number. You just have to get at least 270 chicken votes in the chicken college. Just 270 chickens? | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Uh, one, carry the two, divide it by eight. Grover, we know the actual number. You just have to get at least 270 chicken votes in the chicken college. Just 270 chickens? I can do that! 300 chickens just crossed the road to hear me speak at the rally! Oh, great. | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Just 270 chickens? I can do that! 300 chickens just crossed the road to hear me speak at the rally! Oh, great. Do you have your speech? Oh, yeah. It's right here. | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Oh, great. Do you have your speech? Oh, yeah. It's right here. Where did they put it? Eh, I'll just wing it. Bye, Sal! | Sal teaches Grover about the electoral college US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
When you first learn about the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and the debates and the compromises, it's easy to assume that, okay, that's interesting from a historical point of view, but how does it affect me today? Well, the simple answer is it affects you incredibly, those compromises that were made over 200 years ago. So the most obvious question is, well, what were those compromises? Well, to even start to appreciate the compromises, let's start with this picture or this chart of the census in 1790. So it gives a pretty good snapshot of what the United States looked like after the Constitution was ratified. So as you can see, the population as a whole was much smaller than it is today. It was roughly a little under four million people. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, to even start to appreciate the compromises, let's start with this picture or this chart of the census in 1790. So it gives a pretty good snapshot of what the United States looked like after the Constitution was ratified. So as you can see, the population as a whole was much smaller than it is today. It was roughly a little under four million people. Today, the United States is over 300 million people. And then you also see a pretty big population difference between the states. You have big states like Virginia, which at the time had 750,000 people, and then you had small states like Delaware that had 60,000 people, or you have Rhode Island that has a little under 70,000 people. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
It was roughly a little under four million people. Today, the United States is over 300 million people. And then you also see a pretty big population difference between the states. You have big states like Virginia, which at the time had 750,000 people, and then you had small states like Delaware that had 60,000 people, or you have Rhode Island that has a little under 70,000 people. And so you can imagine the Virginians or the people from Massachusetts might have said, hey, we want representation in the legislative, in Congress, to be based on population. It should be, we have a lot of people, we should get more of a say, while someone from, say, Delaware might say, wait, hold on a second. Under the Articles of Confederation, we were a sovereign state. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
You have big states like Virginia, which at the time had 750,000 people, and then you had small states like Delaware that had 60,000 people, or you have Rhode Island that has a little under 70,000 people. And so you can imagine the Virginians or the people from Massachusetts might have said, hey, we want representation in the legislative, in Congress, to be based on population. It should be, we have a lot of people, we should get more of a say, while someone from, say, Delaware might say, wait, hold on a second. Under the Articles of Confederation, we were a sovereign state. We don't wanna just become, do whatever the Virginians or the people from Massachusetts wanna do. We wanna have a more equal say. And of course, the big state folks would have said, well, no, then your population, people in your population, in your state, are going to be overrepresented. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Under the Articles of Confederation, we were a sovereign state. We don't wanna just become, do whatever the Virginians or the people from Massachusetts wanna do. We wanna have a more equal say. And of course, the big state folks would have said, well, no, then your population, people in your population, in your state, are going to be overrepresented. And so this was a serious debate, and it resulted in what is called the Great Compromise. The Great Compromise, which is probably the most cited compromise coming out of the US Constitution. And it's the notion of, okay, well, let's have it both ways. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And of course, the big state folks would have said, well, no, then your population, people in your population, in your state, are going to be overrepresented. And so this was a serious debate, and it resulted in what is called the Great Compromise. The Great Compromise, which is probably the most cited compromise coming out of the US Constitution. And it's the notion of, okay, well, let's have it both ways. In the legislative, let's create two houses. Let's do one house that is based on population, so the House of Representatives, where Virginia will get more representation than a Delaware. But then let's make another house called the Senate, where every state has equal representation, where you have two senators per state. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And it's the notion of, okay, well, let's have it both ways. In the legislative, let's create two houses. Let's do one house that is based on population, so the House of Representatives, where Virginia will get more representation than a Delaware. But then let's make another house called the Senate, where every state has equal representation, where you have two senators per state. And to appreciate that this is, even today, a controversial thing, here is an article from the New York Times from 2013. This is an article that's talking about perceived inequalities of per-person federal funding. And it says, and the article is literally named, Big State, Small State. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But then let's make another house called the Senate, where every state has equal representation, where you have two senators per state. And to appreciate that this is, even today, a controversial thing, here is an article from the New York Times from 2013. This is an article that's talking about perceived inequalities of per-person federal funding. And it says, and the article is literally named, Big State, Small State. Vermont's 625,000 residents have two United States senators, and so do New York's 19 million. That means that a Vermonter has 30 times the voting power in the Senate of a New Yorker just over the state line. The biggest inequality between two adjacent states. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And it says, and the article is literally named, Big State, Small State. Vermont's 625,000 residents have two United States senators, and so do New York's 19 million. That means that a Vermonter has 30 times the voting power in the Senate of a New Yorker just over the state line. The biggest inequality between two adjacent states. The nation's largest gap between Wyoming and California is more than double that. So they're making the argument that at least in the Senate, a person in Vermont has 30 times the representation as a person in New York. And if you compare Wyoming and California, it's a factor of 60. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The biggest inequality between two adjacent states. The nation's largest gap between Wyoming and California is more than double that. So they're making the argument that at least in the Senate, a person in Vermont has 30 times the representation as a person in New York. And if you compare Wyoming and California, it's a factor of 60. And they say the difference reflects the growing disparity in their citizens' voting power, and it is not an anomaly. The Constitution has always given residents of states with small populations a lift. So this is coming straight out of the Great Compromise. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And if you compare Wyoming and California, it's a factor of 60. And they say the difference reflects the growing disparity in their citizens' voting power, and it is not an anomaly. The Constitution has always given residents of states with small populations a lift. So this is coming straight out of the Great Compromise. But the size and importance of the gap has grown markedly in recent decades, in ways the framers probably never anticipated. So you can imagine, this is the New York Times, so they probably might favor a little bit more representation for New Yorkers. But it's an interesting thing to think about. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So this is coming straight out of the Great Compromise. But the size and importance of the gap has grown markedly in recent decades, in ways the framers probably never anticipated. So you can imagine, this is the New York Times, so they probably might favor a little bit more representation for New Yorkers. But it's an interesting thing to think about. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Could they have predicted how much the United States would grow, be the movement to the cities, even in that census of 1790, we saw a factor of a little more than 10 between a Virginia and, say, a Rhode Island. But now we're talking about a factor of 60 between California and Wyoming. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But it's an interesting thing to think about. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Could they have predicted how much the United States would grow, be the movement to the cities, even in that census of 1790, we saw a factor of a little more than 10 between a Virginia and, say, a Rhode Island. But now we're talking about a factor of 60 between California and Wyoming. There's no right answer here, but it is something very interesting to think about. And as you can see, it's something that people are even talking about today. Now, the other significant compromise that is also talked a lot about these days is the notion of the electoral college. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But now we're talking about a factor of 60 between California and Wyoming. There's no right answer here, but it is something very interesting to think about. And as you can see, it's something that people are even talking about today. Now, the other significant compromise that is also talked a lot about these days is the notion of the electoral college. So people who are more in the anti-federalist camp, they were more in favor of a participatory democracy, a direct democracy, where you have one person, one vote, and whoever gets the majority of the vote in the country, well, maybe they should be president. But federalists, especially folks like James Madison, they were a little suspicious of just the crowd voting whoever they wanted. They wanted it to go through a filter, with the idea that maybe that filter could temper the passions of the crowd, so to speak. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Now, the other significant compromise that is also talked a lot about these days is the notion of the electoral college. So people who are more in the anti-federalist camp, they were more in favor of a participatory democracy, a direct democracy, where you have one person, one vote, and whoever gets the majority of the vote in the country, well, maybe they should be president. But federalists, especially folks like James Madison, they were a little suspicious of just the crowd voting whoever they wanted. They wanted it to go through a filter, with the idea that maybe that filter could temper the passions of the crowd, so to speak. And so they devised this system where it isn't one person, one vote, but every state has a certain number of electors. So you vote for electors, and then the states send them, and then they can place their vote for president. It turns out that most states have decided to have a winner-take-all policy, so that maybe they could matter more for the presidential election. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
They wanted it to go through a filter, with the idea that maybe that filter could temper the passions of the crowd, so to speak. And so they devised this system where it isn't one person, one vote, but every state has a certain number of electors. So you vote for electors, and then the states send them, and then they can place their vote for president. It turns out that most states have decided to have a winner-take-all policy, so that maybe they could matter more for the presidential election. But what that's resulted in is if you take a big state like Texas, and just draw a quick drawing of Texas, or a big state like California right over here, and a winner-take-all, as soon as you cross 50%, you get 50.1% in either one of these states, and in other big states, it's true in most states, well, then you'll get all of the electors for that state. So even if you get 70% of the vote in Texas, or 70% in the vote of California, it's equivalent to getting 50.1%. The reason why this has resulted in some significant debate, in the recent past, you've had two major elections where the electoral college majority was different than the popular majority. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
It turns out that most states have decided to have a winner-take-all policy, so that maybe they could matter more for the presidential election. But what that's resulted in is if you take a big state like Texas, and just draw a quick drawing of Texas, or a big state like California right over here, and a winner-take-all, as soon as you cross 50%, you get 50.1% in either one of these states, and in other big states, it's true in most states, well, then you'll get all of the electors for that state. So even if you get 70% of the vote in Texas, or 70% in the vote of California, it's equivalent to getting 50.1%. The reason why this has resulted in some significant debate, in the recent past, you've had two major elections where the electoral college majority was different than the popular majority. You had Bush versus Gore in 2000, and you have Trump versus Clinton in 2016. Now, two of the other major compromises that came out of the Constitutional Convention are less debated today, and that's a good thing, because they were resolved finally in 1865 by the 13th Amendment that came out of the Civil War, and these were around slavery. You have the 3 5ths, 3 5ths Compromise. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The reason why this has resulted in some significant debate, in the recent past, you've had two major elections where the electoral college majority was different than the popular majority. You had Bush versus Gore in 2000, and you have Trump versus Clinton in 2016. Now, two of the other major compromises that came out of the Constitutional Convention are less debated today, and that's a good thing, because they were resolved finally in 1865 by the 13th Amendment that came out of the Civil War, and these were around slavery. You have the 3 5ths, 3 5ths Compromise. And this is actually still more of a notion around representation. Even in the House, how do you determine the population that's gonna dictate how many representatives you get? What about slaves? | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
You have the 3 5ths, 3 5ths Compromise. And this is actually still more of a notion around representation. Even in the House, how do you determine the population that's gonna dictate how many representatives you get? What about slaves? If you look back to this chart right over here, notice some of the southern states had a significant fraction of their population that were slaves, and so you can imagine that their delegates were saying, hey, we wanna count them in the population. They didn't want them to vote, but they said, hey, when we decide how many representatives we get, we wanna count these 293,000 people in Virginia when we decide how many representatives they get. And you can imagine other states, either just because they didn't wanna dilute their own representation, or maybe even some of them might have felt morally against something like slavery, said, well, you know, you shouldn't get a benefit because you're doing this thing called slavery, and so they were against it. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
What about slaves? If you look back to this chart right over here, notice some of the southern states had a significant fraction of their population that were slaves, and so you can imagine that their delegates were saying, hey, we wanna count them in the population. They didn't want them to vote, but they said, hey, when we decide how many representatives we get, we wanna count these 293,000 people in Virginia when we decide how many representatives they get. And you can imagine other states, either just because they didn't wanna dilute their own representation, or maybe even some of them might have felt morally against something like slavery, said, well, you know, you shouldn't get a benefit because you're doing this thing called slavery, and so they were against it. And so the compromise, and once again, James Madison was significantly involved here, was the 3 5ths Compromise, that for determining representation, a slave would count as 3 5ths of a person, which is offensive to our sensibilities, but that's the compromise they came up with, but it wasn't an issue anymore once slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. The last major compromise that people will talk about, and this one also revolves around slavery, is the importation, importation of slaves. During the Revolution, because Great Britain had such a significant role in the slave trade, the colonies were pretty, or the states, the nascent states, were pretty unified around not participating, at least with Great Britain, but once the Revolution was over, this became an issue again. | The impact of constitutional compromises on us today US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
In many videos already, we have talked about our three branches of government in the United States, but what we're gonna do in this video is focus a little bit more on the judicial branch. As we've talked about, judicial branch's main goal is to be the final authority on the United States Constitution. And the main check that they have on the legislative and executive branches is that they can deem things that are happening in the other branches, say a law that gets passed by Congress or an executive order from the president, as being unconstitutional. They can also interpret the laws that have been passed, and so that's where they get their power. Now, another interesting thing about the judicial branch that we've talked about is, unlike the executive and legislative branch, where these folks are elected in a semi-regular basis, the Supreme Court, these are lifetime appointments. Once someone is nominated by a president and then confirmed by the Senate, they're in the Supreme Court for life. And so the question is, is when the Supreme Court does something that, say, the president or a member of Congress disagrees with, what can they do? | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
They can also interpret the laws that have been passed, and so that's where they get their power. Now, another interesting thing about the judicial branch that we've talked about is, unlike the executive and legislative branch, where these folks are elected in a semi-regular basis, the Supreme Court, these are lifetime appointments. Once someone is nominated by a president and then confirmed by the Senate, they're in the Supreme Court for life. And so the question is, is when the Supreme Court does something that, say, the president or a member of Congress disagrees with, what can they do? Well, there's a couple of options here. One option, let's say that a clause of a law is deemed unconstitutional. So let's say that there's a law here, and this part of it, the US Supreme Court says, no, that's not consistent with the Constitution. | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
And so the question is, is when the Supreme Court does something that, say, the president or a member of Congress disagrees with, what can they do? Well, there's a couple of options here. One option, let's say that a clause of a law is deemed unconstitutional. So let's say that there's a law here, and this part of it, the US Supreme Court says, no, that's not consistent with the Constitution. Sometimes the legislature might decide to, hey, let's try to pass another law that clarifies that clause in a way that is in line with the Constitution, or we'll do a whole other law that's worded different, but it has the same purpose. And so the legislative branch can't overrule the judicial branch, but they can try to revise their laws to get more in line with their intent, but not get the negative judicial review. The president also has some levers. | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
So let's say that there's a law here, and this part of it, the US Supreme Court says, no, that's not consistent with the Constitution. Sometimes the legislature might decide to, hey, let's try to pass another law that clarifies that clause in a way that is in line with the Constitution, or we'll do a whole other law that's worded different, but it has the same purpose. And so the legislative branch can't overrule the judicial branch, but they can try to revise their laws to get more in line with their intent, but not get the negative judicial review. The president also has some levers. There's examples in history of the president just outright ignoring a judicial verdict. For example, Thomas Jefferson, during the Embargo Acts during his administration, this is during the Napoleonic Wars, and those warring nations were taking advantage of American vessels and seamen, and Thomas Jefferson decided, hey, we don't wanna have trade with those countries. There were aspects of those that the Supreme Court, including some Jefferson appointees, decided were unconstitutional, but Jefferson just kinda kept executing the way he wanted to. | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
The president also has some levers. There's examples in history of the president just outright ignoring a judicial verdict. For example, Thomas Jefferson, during the Embargo Acts during his administration, this is during the Napoleonic Wars, and those warring nations were taking advantage of American vessels and seamen, and Thomas Jefferson decided, hey, we don't wanna have trade with those countries. There were aspects of those that the Supreme Court, including some Jefferson appointees, decided were unconstitutional, but Jefferson just kinda kept executing the way he wanted to. You fast forward a few decades to the beginning of the Civil War. President Lincoln decided that, hey, there's some people causing some trouble and we need to detain them, and we know there's a constitutional right of habeas corpus that says that people should be allowed to go to court to decide whether the detention is legal, to decide whether they should be detained, but President Lincoln decided to suspend habeas corpus in certain parts of the country, which the Supreme Court was not happy with. But he decided to just go ahead with it with the argument that it was necessary to preserve the Union. | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
There were aspects of those that the Supreme Court, including some Jefferson appointees, decided were unconstitutional, but Jefferson just kinda kept executing the way he wanted to. You fast forward a few decades to the beginning of the Civil War. President Lincoln decided that, hey, there's some people causing some trouble and we need to detain them, and we know there's a constitutional right of habeas corpus that says that people should be allowed to go to court to decide whether the detention is legal, to decide whether they should be detained, but President Lincoln decided to suspend habeas corpus in certain parts of the country, which the Supreme Court was not happy with. But he decided to just go ahead with it with the argument that it was necessary to preserve the Union. And perhaps the most famous example of a president not being happy with verdicts of the Supreme Court was FDR. As he took office in the midst of the Great Depression, there's a whole series of federal programs that he was trying to pass, and the Supreme Court started to strike down many of these, saying that, hey, this was not the role of the federal government, or this was overreaching by the executive. And so FDR was not happy with this, and so he actually proposed to the legislative branch the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which essentially said, hey, as soon as a Supreme Court justice is over 70 and a half years old, I should be able to appoint another Supreme Court justice up to six. | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
But he decided to just go ahead with it with the argument that it was necessary to preserve the Union. And perhaps the most famous example of a president not being happy with verdicts of the Supreme Court was FDR. As he took office in the midst of the Great Depression, there's a whole series of federal programs that he was trying to pass, and the Supreme Court started to strike down many of these, saying that, hey, this was not the role of the federal government, or this was overreaching by the executive. And so FDR was not happy with this, and so he actually proposed to the legislative branch the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which essentially said, hey, as soon as a Supreme Court justice is over 70 and a half years old, I should be able to appoint another Supreme Court justice up to six. And it turns out that there were exactly six justices who had already reached that age, and so he essentially wanted to pack the Supreme Court with six new justices that would agree with him, that would allow him to do what he wanted. The legislative branch did not pass his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, but some historians think that it had the impact that he wanted, because it seems, and we don't know for sure, that after he even tried to do this, the judicial branch seemed more friendly to FDR. So maybe they said, hey, you know, maybe we don't wanna mess with this guy too much, because eventually he might be successful, instead of having nine Supreme Court justices, we'll have 15. | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
And so FDR was not happy with this, and so he actually proposed to the legislative branch the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which essentially said, hey, as soon as a Supreme Court justice is over 70 and a half years old, I should be able to appoint another Supreme Court justice up to six. And it turns out that there were exactly six justices who had already reached that age, and so he essentially wanted to pack the Supreme Court with six new justices that would agree with him, that would allow him to do what he wanted. The legislative branch did not pass his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, but some historians think that it had the impact that he wanted, because it seems, and we don't know for sure, that after he even tried to do this, the judicial branch seemed more friendly to FDR. So maybe they said, hey, you know, maybe we don't wanna mess with this guy too much, because eventually he might be successful, instead of having nine Supreme Court justices, we'll have 15. People sometimes call this the switch in time that saved nine. But to get an appreciation of how people thought about it, I have some political cartoons from the time, and these are fun to just pause and take a look at. So this says, Trying to Change the Umpiring. | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
So maybe they said, hey, you know, maybe we don't wanna mess with this guy too much, because eventually he might be successful, instead of having nine Supreme Court justices, we'll have 15. People sometimes call this the switch in time that saved nine. But to get an appreciation of how people thought about it, I have some political cartoons from the time, and these are fun to just pause and take a look at. So this says, Trying to Change the Umpiring. So this is a Supreme Court President Roosevelt year, and he's saying, listen, I don't like your decisions. From now on, you're going to have to work with someone who can see things my way. And you can see all the different bats that he tried to use, and they were all ruled out by the umpire, the NRA, the AAA. | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
So this says, Trying to Change the Umpiring. So this is a Supreme Court President Roosevelt year, and he's saying, listen, I don't like your decisions. From now on, you're going to have to work with someone who can see things my way. And you can see all the different bats that he tried to use, and they were all ruled out by the umpire, the NRA, the AAA. These are all different government institutions or programs that FDR was trying to set up in order to fight the Great Depression as part of his New Deal. And they say, New Deal Acts Declared Unconstitutional. I have another political cartoon right over here, and it's from that same period in time. | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
And you can see all the different bats that he tried to use, and they were all ruled out by the umpire, the NRA, the AAA. These are all different government institutions or programs that FDR was trying to set up in order to fight the Great Depression as part of his New Deal. And they say, New Deal Acts Declared Unconstitutional. I have another political cartoon right over here, and it's from that same period in time. Do we want a ventriloquist act in the Supreme Court? And you see Uncle Sam here, and then you have FDR, and it looks like he's got his hand controlling these puppets. It says, Yes, yes, we all vote yes. | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
I have another political cartoon right over here, and it's from that same period in time. Do we want a ventriloquist act in the Supreme Court? And you see Uncle Sam here, and then you have FDR, and it looks like he's got his hand controlling these puppets. It says, Yes, yes, we all vote yes. And even though FDR did not get his way with his court-packing plan, as it's sometimes called, let me write that down, his court-packing plan, as I mentioned, some historians believe that it did help influence the court, being a little bit friendlier to him. And a somewhat irony of it is, at the end of the day, because FDR served so many terms in office, he was able to make eight out of nine Supreme Court appointments. So in a lot of ways, he did determine the inclinations of the Supreme Court for many decades to come, well after his administration. | Executive and legislative disagreements with the Supreme Court Khan Academy.mp3 |
But does it have any relevance to our lives today? To learn more, I sought out the help of two experts. Jay Wexler is a professor of law at Boston University School of Law, specializing in constitutional law and the Supreme Court. Glenn Reynolds is the Beauchamp-Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law. So, Professor Reynolds, why did the framers feel it was necessary to put this amendment in the Bill of Rights? Well, we don't think of quartering of troops in people's homes is a very big issue these days. And of course, some people would say that's because the Third Amendment's worked perfectly, if only the rest of the Bill of Rights worked so well. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Glenn Reynolds is the Beauchamp-Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law. So, Professor Reynolds, why did the framers feel it was necessary to put this amendment in the Bill of Rights? Well, we don't think of quartering of troops in people's homes is a very big issue these days. And of course, some people would say that's because the Third Amendment's worked perfectly, if only the rest of the Bill of Rights worked so well. But it was a big issue for the framers because it had happened a lot. To the framers, the English Civil Wars of the 17th century were recent history, and their attitudes were very much shaped by that. And the Stuart kings in particular used quartering of troops as a way to punish towns and areas that they didn't like. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And of course, some people would say that's because the Third Amendment's worked perfectly, if only the rest of the Bill of Rights worked so well. But it was a big issue for the framers because it had happened a lot. To the framers, the English Civil Wars of the 17th century were recent history, and their attitudes were very much shaped by that. And the Stuart kings in particular used quartering of troops as a way to punish towns and areas that they didn't like. The soldiers back then were basically jail sweepings. They had a tendency to steal and to rape and to get into fights, even with the people they were quartered with. So it was, to have troops quartered upon a town was a way of sort of mass punishment. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And the Stuart kings in particular used quartering of troops as a way to punish towns and areas that they didn't like. The soldiers back then were basically jail sweepings. They had a tendency to steal and to rape and to get into fights, even with the people they were quartered with. So it was, to have troops quartered upon a town was a way of sort of mass punishment. And that made the English rather unhappy. And after the Glorious Revolution, they banned the practice in England, but they did not ban it in the colony. The king had quartered troops in private homes in the colonies in what became the United States for a long time before the revolution, since at least 1670. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So it was, to have troops quartered upon a town was a way of sort of mass punishment. And that made the English rather unhappy. And after the Glorious Revolution, they banned the practice in England, but they did not ban it in the colony. The king had quartered troops in private homes in the colonies in what became the United States for a long time before the revolution, since at least 1670. And as it's easy to imagine, this caused a lot of tension between the homeowners and the colonies and the British troops. And that had got even worse as we found ourselves in the French and Indian War in the 1750s and 1760s. Because nobody wants the government to put troops in their house. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The king had quartered troops in private homes in the colonies in what became the United States for a long time before the revolution, since at least 1670. And as it's easy to imagine, this caused a lot of tension between the homeowners and the colonies and the British troops. And that had got even worse as we found ourselves in the French and Indian War in the 1750s and 1760s. Because nobody wants the government to put troops in their house. The house is the place where people live their most private lives. And to have the government come in and say, here, the soldiers are gonna live here with you now, is something that understandably the colonists were very worried about and didn't like very much. So things got worse in the 1760s when England passed the First Quartering Act, which basically required the colonies had to provide barracks for the king's troops. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Because nobody wants the government to put troops in their house. The house is the place where people live their most private lives. And to have the government come in and say, here, the soldiers are gonna live here with you now, is something that understandably the colonists were very worried about and didn't like very much. So things got worse in the 1760s when England passed the First Quartering Act, which basically required the colonies had to provide barracks for the king's troops. And if there weren't barracks, then the soldiers were authorized to live in inns and ale houses and houses. This is right from the act itself, selling rum and brandy and strong water. And then if there weren't enough of those around, they could live in the private buildings, uninhabited houses and barns and things like this. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So things got worse in the 1760s when England passed the First Quartering Act, which basically required the colonies had to provide barracks for the king's troops. And if there weren't barracks, then the soldiers were authorized to live in inns and ale houses and houses. This is right from the act itself, selling rum and brandy and strong water. And then if there weren't enough of those around, they could live in the private buildings, uninhabited houses and barns and things like this. And that requirement resulted in part in the Stamp Act of 1765, which led then to the Tea Party, which everybody knows about. And the Tea Party really made the king angry. After that, the king passed, or the parliament passed the Second Quartering Act of 1774, which required colonists to allow the king's troops to live in their homes, which was of course, something that the colonists absolutely couldn't stand. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And then if there weren't enough of those around, they could live in the private buildings, uninhabited houses and barns and things like this. And that requirement resulted in part in the Stamp Act of 1765, which led then to the Tea Party, which everybody knows about. And the Tea Party really made the king angry. After that, the king passed, or the parliament passed the Second Quartering Act of 1774, which required colonists to allow the king's troops to live in their homes, which was of course, something that the colonists absolutely couldn't stand. So when we got our independence, it was one of the most important goals of the framers to make sure that this kind of thing could not happen. So what was so problematic about the possibility of having a soldier quartered in your home or multiple soldiers quartered in your home? Well, some of us don't particularly like having house guests in general, but they're not house guests. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
After that, the king passed, or the parliament passed the Second Quartering Act of 1774, which required colonists to allow the king's troops to live in their homes, which was of course, something that the colonists absolutely couldn't stand. So when we got our independence, it was one of the most important goals of the framers to make sure that this kind of thing could not happen. So what was so problematic about the possibility of having a soldier quartered in your home or multiple soldiers quartered in your home? Well, some of us don't particularly like having house guests in general, but they're not house guests. I mean, the problem is, troops back then were not like, we think of soldiers today in the American army, it's hard to get in the army. People try to get in the army and they're told, go away, your grades aren't good enough and you're not smart enough. And if you have a criminal record, they don't want you. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, some of us don't particularly like having house guests in general, but they're not house guests. I mean, the problem is, troops back then were not like, we think of soldiers today in the American army, it's hard to get in the army. People try to get in the army and they're told, go away, your grades aren't good enough and you're not smart enough. And if you have a criminal record, they don't want you. It wasn't like that back then. Warfare was bloody and awful. The troops stood in masses of hundred yards from each other and blasted away with these brown vest muskets. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And if you have a criminal record, they don't want you. It wasn't like that back then. Warfare was bloody and awful. The troops stood in masses of hundred yards from each other and blasted away with these brown vest muskets. Actually, the most common injury then was when pieces of the soldier next to you were driven into you, jawbone and stuff like that. So it was pretty nasty and the discipline that it took to make people do that was pretty harsh and it wasn't very appealing to the better sort. So literally, a lot of these soldiers were people who were sent there straight from jail. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The troops stood in masses of hundred yards from each other and blasted away with these brown vest muskets. Actually, the most common injury then was when pieces of the soldier next to you were driven into you, jawbone and stuff like that. So it was pretty nasty and the discipline that it took to make people do that was pretty harsh and it wasn't very appealing to the better sort. So literally, a lot of these soldiers were people who were sent there straight from jail. So they were not very nice people to have living in your house and they didn't have a very good attitude when they did. I think they were widely viewed as being cruel, as being unfriendly, maybe even drunk a lot. But it was certainly not the case that they were making their own beds and cleaning up after their dinner and such like that. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So literally, a lot of these soldiers were people who were sent there straight from jail. So they were not very nice people to have living in your house and they didn't have a very good attitude when they did. I think they were widely viewed as being cruel, as being unfriendly, maybe even drunk a lot. But it was certainly not the case that they were making their own beds and cleaning up after their dinner and such like that. So they were not guests. They were people who were living in the houses, taking liberties any way they wanted and making basically a nuisance of themselves for sure. So I mean, imagine if some soldier you didn't know and you didn't invite into your house was all of a sudden staying in your living room and then multiply that by however many soldiers it might be, 10, who knows, living in your living room while you're trying to carry out the daily tasks of your life and talking with your children and making plans about dinner. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But it was certainly not the case that they were making their own beds and cleaning up after their dinner and such like that. So they were not guests. They were people who were living in the houses, taking liberties any way they wanted and making basically a nuisance of themselves for sure. So I mean, imagine if some soldier you didn't know and you didn't invite into your house was all of a sudden staying in your living room and then multiply that by however many soldiers it might be, 10, who knows, living in your living room while you're trying to carry out the daily tasks of your life and talking with your children and making plans about dinner. And can you imagine how offensive that would be and how problematic that would be to have the government's troops hanging out in your living room. It would be pretty awful. So it's no surprise that the framers, I think, objected to this and put this amendment into the constitution. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So I mean, imagine if some soldier you didn't know and you didn't invite into your house was all of a sudden staying in your living room and then multiply that by however many soldiers it might be, 10, who knows, living in your living room while you're trying to carry out the daily tasks of your life and talking with your children and making plans about dinner. And can you imagine how offensive that would be and how problematic that would be to have the government's troops hanging out in your living room. It would be pretty awful. So it's no surprise that the framers, I think, objected to this and put this amendment into the constitution. So do you think that the Quartering Act of 1774, do you think that was the straw that broke the camel's back in the American Revolution? Was it that living with soldiers was just so noxious that it propelled the colonists over the edge into the revolution? Well, you know, there were a lot of straws that broke that camel's back, so it's hard to say which one. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So it's no surprise that the framers, I think, objected to this and put this amendment into the constitution. So do you think that the Quartering Act of 1774, do you think that was the straw that broke the camel's back in the American Revolution? Was it that living with soldiers was just so noxious that it propelled the colonists over the edge into the revolution? Well, you know, there were a lot of straws that broke that camel's back, so it's hard to say which one. But I think one of the things that the colonists hated about it was that they were being subjected to a rule that didn't apply in England. And one of the things they revolted for, remember, was they thought they'd been deprived of what they called the rights of Englishmen. And this was just another example of the crowd feeling free to do things in the colonies that it wouldn't do at home. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, you know, there were a lot of straws that broke that camel's back, so it's hard to say which one. But I think one of the things that the colonists hated about it was that they were being subjected to a rule that didn't apply in England. And one of the things they revolted for, remember, was they thought they'd been deprived of what they called the rights of Englishmen. And this was just another example of the crowd feeling free to do things in the colonies that it wouldn't do at home. And that sent a signal to the colonists that you're not as important, you're not full-blown citizens, we don't care about you as much, and you don't have the same rights. And I think that was what was intolerable about it. So this seems like an amendment that has this very specific historical background. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And this was just another example of the crowd feeling free to do things in the colonies that it wouldn't do at home. And that sent a signal to the colonists that you're not as important, you're not full-blown citizens, we don't care about you as much, and you don't have the same rights. And I think that was what was intolerable about it. So this seems like an amendment that has this very specific historical background. But how does this kind of play forward into the future? Was there any danger that there might be a later quartering of soldiers after the framing of the Constitution? Well, there was always the risk. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So this seems like an amendment that has this very specific historical background. But how does this kind of play forward into the future? Was there any danger that there might be a later quartering of soldiers after the framing of the Constitution? Well, there was always the risk. There was always the risk that even in the independent United States that the government might at some point require homeowners to put up soldiers. And in fact, there's some evidence that during the Civil War this happened. I think the evidence is a little foggy, but there's certainly a suggestion in the literature that the Union government required homeowners to put up Union troops. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, there was always the risk. There was always the risk that even in the independent United States that the government might at some point require homeowners to put up soldiers. And in fact, there's some evidence that during the Civil War this happened. I think the evidence is a little foggy, but there's certainly a suggestion in the literature that the Union government required homeowners to put up Union troops. And so it could have been a problem. It's not something that has in fact turned into a huge issue over time, which might say something about how successful the Third Amendment has been in our history. But it was always a risk. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
I think the evidence is a little foggy, but there's certainly a suggestion in the literature that the Union government required homeowners to put up Union troops. And so it could have been a problem. It's not something that has in fact turned into a huge issue over time, which might say something about how successful the Third Amendment has been in our history. But it was always a risk. I think it was never far from the minds of the framers, this possibility that the government might decide to put its soldiers into people's private homes. I think at the time of the revolution and when the framers were putting together the Constitution, they had a real fear of standing armies, right? They didn't want a standing army in the United States. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But it was always a risk. I think it was never far from the minds of the framers, this possibility that the government might decide to put its soldiers into people's private homes. I think at the time of the revolution and when the framers were putting together the Constitution, they had a real fear of standing armies, right? They didn't want a standing army in the United States. In fact, there wasn't one in the United States at all, a professional army until after the Civil War, I believe. And now we see a standing army, a very large standing army of the United States as being pretty normal. How do you think the Third Amendment shows how our ideas of standing armies have changed over time? | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
They didn't want a standing army in the United States. In fact, there wasn't one in the United States at all, a professional army until after the Civil War, I believe. And now we see a standing army, a very large standing army of the United States as being pretty normal. How do you think the Third Amendment shows how our ideas of standing armies have changed over time? You know, one historian said that our framers had an almost panic fear of standing armies. And that was based again on the history of the English Civil Wars in the 17th century, where standing armies, you know, the tradition was the king would disarm people he didn't like and then use the army against them. And that was seen as very bad. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
How do you think the Third Amendment shows how our ideas of standing armies have changed over time? You know, one historian said that our framers had an almost panic fear of standing armies. And that was based again on the history of the English Civil Wars in the 17th century, where standing armies, you know, the tradition was the king would disarm people he didn't like and then use the army against them. And that was seen as very bad. Standing armies were seen as somebody who was loyal to who paid them, not to the country. I think our army has had a different trajectory. I mean, really, we didn't have a large standing army in the United States on a regular basis until after World War II. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And that was seen as very bad. Standing armies were seen as somebody who was loyal to who paid them, not to the country. I think our army has had a different trajectory. I mean, really, we didn't have a large standing army in the United States on a regular basis until after World War II. So I think we're just less afraid of it because our army has been more professional, maybe because we feel like the army is more loyal to citizens than it is to who pays it. Or maybe because we've just lost perhaps a vital edge of paranoia that the framers had. Has there ever been a Supreme Court case that ruled based on the Third Amendment? | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
I mean, really, we didn't have a large standing army in the United States on a regular basis until after World War II. So I think we're just less afraid of it because our army has been more professional, maybe because we feel like the army is more loyal to citizens than it is to who pays it. Or maybe because we've just lost perhaps a vital edge of paranoia that the framers had. Has there ever been a Supreme Court case that ruled based on the Third Amendment? There's a single federal court of appeals case called Engblom against Kerry, where the federal court of appeals applied the Third Amendment in a New York prison riot case where guards were pushed out of their barracks and national guardsmen were put in. But the Supreme Court's never done it. But the Supreme Court has relied on the Third Amendment. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Has there ever been a Supreme Court case that ruled based on the Third Amendment? There's a single federal court of appeals case called Engblom against Kerry, where the federal court of appeals applied the Third Amendment in a New York prison riot case where guards were pushed out of their barracks and national guardsmen were put in. But the Supreme Court's never done it. But the Supreme Court has relied on the Third Amendment. In fact, one of the most famous cases of the second half of the 20th century from the Warren Court was Griswold against Connecticut. That was actually a case striking down laws against birth control. Which was one of the forerunners to Roe versus Wade. | The Third Amendment The National Constitution Center US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.