Sentence
stringlengths 118
2.7k
| video_title
stringlengths 38
107
|
|---|---|
It could be you get $100 per month for every year that you work at the organization. You get $100 per month extra when you retire. But they tend to be for life, for the rest of your life, from 65 until you pass away. You are guaranteed this defined benefit. And so if the money set aside and invested well and happened to be a lot more money than necessary, that's great, but all the employee would get is this kind of guarantee. But if the money is less than necessary, then the company is still promising that they are going to pay this benefit, and they'll probably have to put more, or the state or whoever is doing this, would have to put more money in in order to pay this compensation. Now, what are the things that you would have to estimate if you were the person setting aside this money to figure out what you have to set aside in order to give this defined benefit? | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
You are guaranteed this defined benefit. And so if the money set aside and invested well and happened to be a lot more money than necessary, that's great, but all the employee would get is this kind of guarantee. But if the money is less than necessary, then the company is still promising that they are going to pay this benefit, and they'll probably have to put more, or the state or whoever is doing this, would have to put more money in in order to pay this compensation. Now, what are the things that you would have to estimate if you were the person setting aside this money to figure out what you have to set aside in order to give this defined benefit? Well, you're going to have to hire a bunch of statisticians, essentially actuaries, to say, well, how long are people going to live? So you're going to have to care about lifespan. And obviously you can't predict any one person's lifespan, but if you're doing this for hundreds of thousands of employees, maybe you can figure out what a likely lifespan is. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Now, what are the things that you would have to estimate if you were the person setting aside this money to figure out what you have to set aside in order to give this defined benefit? Well, you're going to have to hire a bunch of statisticians, essentially actuaries, to say, well, how long are people going to live? So you're going to have to care about lifespan. And obviously you can't predict any one person's lifespan, but if you're doing this for hundreds of thousands of employees, maybe you can figure out what a likely lifespan is. You're going to have to figure out cost of living. So inflation is a measure of cost of living, but it might be more specific to the region, or it might be negotiated in some ways with the union. So you're going to have cost of living. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And obviously you can't predict any one person's lifespan, but if you're doing this for hundreds of thousands of employees, maybe you can figure out what a likely lifespan is. You're going to have to figure out cost of living. So inflation is a measure of cost of living, but it might be more specific to the region, or it might be negotiated in some ways with the union. So you're going to have cost of living. So this is a cost of living adjustment. When people talk about colas, they're talking about, well, if they're not talking about soda, they're talking about cost of living adjustments. You're going to have to think about this money that you set aside. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So you're going to have cost of living. So this is a cost of living adjustment. When people talk about colas, they're talking about, well, if they're not talking about soda, they're talking about cost of living adjustments. You're going to have to think about this money that you set aside. What is the assumed growth rate? What is the assumed growth rate? If you make very optimistic estimates of how well your investments will do, you can set aside less money. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
You're going to have to think about this money that you set aside. What is the assumed growth rate? What is the assumed growth rate? If you make very optimistic estimates of how well your investments will do, you can set aside less money. If you think that your money isn't going to do well investment-wise, you're going to have to set aside even more money. And this is one of the cruxes of the issue, because you can imagine, let's say that we're talking at a state level, and people are, you know, right now, let's say that your current actuaries, your statisticians are saying, look, for this person, in order to guarantee them 60% of their salary when they retire, so that's $36,000, in order to guarantee that, we have to put aside, and I'm just estimating these numbers right over here. Let's say we have to set aside $6,000 a year, especially when we're 30 years in advance. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
If you make very optimistic estimates of how well your investments will do, you can set aside less money. If you think that your money isn't going to do well investment-wise, you're going to have to set aside even more money. And this is one of the cruxes of the issue, because you can imagine, let's say that we're talking at a state level, and people are, you know, right now, let's say that your current actuaries, your statisticians are saying, look, for this person, in order to guarantee them 60% of their salary when they retire, so that's $36,000, in order to guarantee that, we have to put aside, and I'm just estimating these numbers right over here. Let's say we have to set aside $6,000 a year, especially when we're 30 years in advance. Actually, let me do a little bit more than that. Let's say $10,000 per year. And let's say that the person in charge, the state official, goes to those actuaries and says, well, what are you assuming about how much we're going to get on our investments here? | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Let's say we have to set aside $6,000 a year, especially when we're 30 years in advance. Actually, let me do a little bit more than that. Let's say $10,000 per year. And let's say that the person in charge, the state official, goes to those actuaries and says, well, what are you assuming about how much we're going to get on our investments here? And the actuaries are saying, well, we're going to assume a fairly conservative, we're going to assume that we're going to get 3%, 3% return on our money. But then the state official says, oh, well, you know, ideally they would want some of this $10,000 per year to spend on other things, and so they would like this to be lower. And so they say, well, that seems very conservative. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And let's say that the person in charge, the state official, goes to those actuaries and says, well, what are you assuming about how much we're going to get on our investments here? And the actuaries are saying, well, we're going to assume a fairly conservative, we're going to assume that we're going to get 3%, 3% return on our money. But then the state official says, oh, well, you know, ideally they would want some of this $10,000 per year to spend on other things, and so they would like this to be lower. And so they say, well, that seems very conservative. In the last 10 years in the stock market, we've gotten 10% return. Or I know an endowment that's recently gotten 6% return. So why don't we assume a higher return here? | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And so they say, well, that seems very conservative. In the last 10 years in the stock market, we've gotten 10% return. Or I know an endowment that's recently gotten 6% return. So why don't we assume a higher return here? So if we assume a higher return, why don't we assume a 5% return? And all of a sudden, if we're assuming a 5% return, then we'll have to set aside less money that year, $8,000 a year. And sometimes it's not even this. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So why don't we assume a higher return here? So if we assume a higher return, why don't we assume a 5% return? And all of a sudden, if we're assuming a 5% return, then we'll have to set aside less money that year, $8,000 a year. And sometimes it's not even this. It's not even this playing with the assumptions, making more optimistic assumptions that allow you to spend less money in that current year. Sometimes you might know that you have to spend $10,000 a year to kind of be able to properly fund these pensions in the future. You do have some types of unfunded pensions, but in theory a responsible party should try to fund these as much as possible. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And sometimes it's not even this. It's not even this playing with the assumptions, making more optimistic assumptions that allow you to spend less money in that current year. Sometimes you might know that you have to spend $10,000 a year to kind of be able to properly fund these pensions in the future. You do have some types of unfunded pensions, but in theory a responsible party should try to fund these as much as possible. You might know that you have to fund $10,000 a year in order to credibly give this defined benefit for this employee 30 years in the future. But 30 years in the future is a long time, and you have present difficulties, you have present shortfalls in your budget. And say, OK, I recognize that I have to put $10,000 a year, but you still don't do that. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
You do have some types of unfunded pensions, but in theory a responsible party should try to fund these as much as possible. You might know that you have to fund $10,000 a year in order to credibly give this defined benefit for this employee 30 years in the future. But 30 years in the future is a long time, and you have present difficulties, you have present shortfalls in your budget. And say, OK, I recognize that I have to put $10,000 a year, but you still don't do that. So you underfund the pension. So even if you recognize this, or if you recognize this, you still only put $5,000 a year. Really just kind of kicking the can down the road, hoping that the next guy or gal who's in your position is going to figure out something. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And say, OK, I recognize that I have to put $10,000 a year, but you still don't do that. So you underfund the pension. So even if you recognize this, or if you recognize this, you still only put $5,000 a year. Really just kind of kicking the can down the road, hoping that the next guy or gal who's in your position is going to figure out something. Or maybe you'll just be very optimistic that the growth will turn out or that the state will eventually work things out. And what we'll see over the next video, this notion of underfunding pensions is a big, big, big, big problem. Because we've had decades of underfunded pensions, and it's been especially pronounced in particular states. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Really just kind of kicking the can down the road, hoping that the next guy or gal who's in your position is going to figure out something. Or maybe you'll just be very optimistic that the growth will turn out or that the state will eventually work things out. And what we'll see over the next video, this notion of underfunding pensions is a big, big, big, big problem. Because we've had decades of underfunded pensions, and it's been especially pronounced in particular states. And because of that, those states, in order to fund the pension obligations that are hitting now, those expenses for employees that are retired are starting to grow beyond their budgets for the employees that are working right now. And it's a tough issue. You can't cut these things very easily. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Because we've had decades of underfunded pensions, and it's been especially pronounced in particular states. And because of that, those states, in order to fund the pension obligations that are hitting now, those expenses for employees that are retired are starting to grow beyond their budgets for the employees that are working right now. And it's a tough issue. You can't cut these things very easily. People expected these. These are retirees. These are people who have been working their whole life based on this assumption. | Pension obligations American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Article One is jam-packed with information about how our government is supposed to work, but principally what it does is create the legislative branch of government, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate, which together comprise the Congress of the United States. Article One also tells us how people can get elected to those bodies and what powers Congress has. To learn more about Article One, I talked to two constitutional experts. Ilya Soman is a professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, whose research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and the study of popular political participation. Professor Heather Gerken is the dean of Yale Law School. She's a leading expert on constitutional law and election law, and her research focuses on federalism, diversity, and dissent. Article One gives an enormous amount of power to the legislative branch, otherwise known as Congress, and it was designed specifically to overcome some of the problems that they'd seen under the Articles of Confederation. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Ilya Soman is a professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, whose research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and the study of popular political participation. Professor Heather Gerken is the dean of Yale Law School. She's a leading expert on constitutional law and election law, and her research focuses on federalism, diversity, and dissent. Article One gives an enormous amount of power to the legislative branch, otherwise known as Congress, and it was designed specifically to overcome some of the problems that they'd seen under the Articles of Confederation. The legislative power under the Articles of Confederation was pretty weak, in part because the Congress under the Confederate Articles didn't have the authority to directly tax the states. They also lacked a lot of other powers that were eventually given to Congress under the Constitution. These were the things that really mattered. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Article One gives an enormous amount of power to the legislative branch, otherwise known as Congress, and it was designed specifically to overcome some of the problems that they'd seen under the Articles of Confederation. The legislative power under the Articles of Confederation was pretty weak, in part because the Congress under the Confederate Articles didn't have the authority to directly tax the states. They also lacked a lot of other powers that were eventually given to Congress under the Constitution. These were the things that really mattered. If you're building a young nation, you need to be able to do certain things in order to protect it, especially at that time, when there were many, many other countries that were circling around, wanting to grab land and power, and so the United States needed to defend itself in those early days. Okay, so we all know today that our legislative branch is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives, but it didn't have to be that way. So why was it that the framers settled on this two-house structure for the legislative branch? | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
These were the things that really mattered. If you're building a young nation, you need to be able to do certain things in order to protect it, especially at that time, when there were many, many other countries that were circling around, wanting to grab land and power, and so the United States needed to defend itself in those early days. Okay, so we all know today that our legislative branch is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives, but it didn't have to be that way. So why was it that the framers settled on this two-house structure for the legislative branch? I think for several reasons. One is that it was a compromise between the small states and the large states. The large states, the ones that have a lot of population, wanted representation in Congress in accordance with population, obviously, then the large states would get more representatives. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So why was it that the framers settled on this two-house structure for the legislative branch? I think for several reasons. One is that it was a compromise between the small states and the large states. The large states, the ones that have a lot of population, wanted representation in Congress in accordance with population, obviously, then the large states would get more representatives. The small states, on the other hand, were concerned that they would be dominated by the large states if that happened. So in the end, the compromise is you have one House to House of Representatives, which is largely apportioned based on population, and one House, the Senate, which is apportioned based on each state having two votes, no matter how small or how large it is. A second reason why you end up with this structure is the influence of the British example. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The large states, the ones that have a lot of population, wanted representation in Congress in accordance with population, obviously, then the large states would get more representatives. The small states, on the other hand, were concerned that they would be dominated by the large states if that happened. So in the end, the compromise is you have one House to House of Representatives, which is largely apportioned based on population, and one House, the Senate, which is apportioned based on each state having two votes, no matter how small or how large it is. A second reason why you end up with this structure is the influence of the British example. The British had both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, of course, being more subject to popular pressure, while the House of Lords was this elite aristocracy. And the founders also wanted a combination of popular and elite power, and it was thought that the Senate would fill that elite role, in part because initially the senators were chosen by state legislatures rather than by the voters directly. So the House of Representatives, which is based on districts, is supposed to represent you based on where you live, and the Senate, which is based on states, is supposed to allow, at that time, the state legislature to nominate two luminaries from the state to represent the state. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
A second reason why you end up with this structure is the influence of the British example. The British had both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, of course, being more subject to popular pressure, while the House of Lords was this elite aristocracy. And the founders also wanted a combination of popular and elite power, and it was thought that the Senate would fill that elite role, in part because initially the senators were chosen by state legislatures rather than by the voters directly. So the House of Representatives, which is based on districts, is supposed to represent you based on where you live, and the Senate, which is based on states, is supposed to allow, at that time, the state legislature to nominate two luminaries from the state to represent the state. So yeah, for a long time, the senators were actually appointed. Now they're elected. Senators were appointed until the passage of the 17th Amendment, which amended Article I, and that gave state legislatures a fair amount of influence over who went to the national government. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So the House of Representatives, which is based on districts, is supposed to represent you based on where you live, and the Senate, which is based on states, is supposed to allow, at that time, the state legislature to nominate two luminaries from the state to represent the state. So yeah, for a long time, the senators were actually appointed. Now they're elected. Senators were appointed until the passage of the 17th Amendment, which amended Article I, and that gave state legislatures a fair amount of influence over who went to the national government. But it is also true that many states, by that time, already effectively had popular election of senators. Really interesting. Okay, so you described the Senate as being kind of the American version of the House of Lords, a little bit more elite, a little less subject to popular opinion. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Senators were appointed until the passage of the 17th Amendment, which amended Article I, and that gave state legislatures a fair amount of influence over who went to the national government. But it is also true that many states, by that time, already effectively had popular election of senators. Really interesting. Okay, so you described the Senate as being kind of the American version of the House of Lords, a little bit more elite, a little less subject to popular opinion. How does that carry over into the Senate that we have today? How are its powers different from the House of Representatives? It does have certainly different powers from the House in some respects. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Okay, so you described the Senate as being kind of the American version of the House of Lords, a little bit more elite, a little less subject to popular opinion. How does that carry over into the Senate that we have today? How are its powers different from the House of Representatives? It does have certainly different powers from the House in some respects. For example, it has the power to ratify treaties and to confirm appointments to the court and to the president's cabinet. So earlier this year, when Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the Supreme Court, he had to be confirmed by the Senate. Obviously, today, the senators are elected just like members of the House are, and I think they're every bit as partisan and almost as sensitive to public opinion as members of the House of Representatives. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
It does have certainly different powers from the House in some respects. For example, it has the power to ratify treaties and to confirm appointments to the court and to the president's cabinet. So earlier this year, when Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the Supreme Court, he had to be confirmed by the Senate. Obviously, today, the senators are elected just like members of the House are, and I think they're every bit as partisan and almost as sensitive to public opinion as members of the House of Representatives. So the difference between the Senate and the House in that regard, maybe it hasn't completely disappeared, but it's certainly greatly diminished. Okay, so there are certain powers that are reserved to the Senate. Are there particular powers that are reserved to the House of Representatives? | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Obviously, today, the senators are elected just like members of the House are, and I think they're every bit as partisan and almost as sensitive to public opinion as members of the House of Representatives. So the difference between the Senate and the House in that regard, maybe it hasn't completely disappeared, but it's certainly greatly diminished. Okay, so there are certain powers that are reserved to the Senate. Are there particular powers that are reserved to the House of Representatives? The House is important. Don't underestimate the importance of the House. I'll just say the House of Representatives, for example, is allowed to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Are there particular powers that are reserved to the House of Representatives? The House is important. Don't underestimate the importance of the House. I'll just say the House of Representatives, for example, is allowed to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. If the House votes in favor of impeachment, then the Senate holds a trial to determine whether the official in question gets convicted or not. As a general matter, though, they're roughly co-equal. For the big, important things like passing legislation, you need both of them to work together. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
I'll just say the House of Representatives, for example, is allowed to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. If the House votes in favor of impeachment, then the Senate holds a trial to determine whether the official in question gets convicted or not. As a general matter, though, they're roughly co-equal. For the big, important things like passing legislation, you need both of them to work together. So together, these two houses make up Congress. So how is Congress different from the executive branch or the judicial branch? What are its powers? | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
For the big, important things like passing legislation, you need both of them to work together. So together, these two houses make up Congress. So how is Congress different from the executive branch or the judicial branch? What are its powers? The way that the framers understood it was that each one would have their own job. So the judiciary, obviously, was there to judge disputes between people, to run the court system, et cetera. The executive was there to carry out the laws. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
What are its powers? The way that the framers understood it was that each one would have their own job. So the judiciary, obviously, was there to judge disputes between people, to run the court system, et cetera. The executive was there to carry out the laws. And so the executive's job is to administer the law once it has been made. And of course, the legislature is there to legislate. So its main job was to make the law. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The executive was there to carry out the laws. And so the executive's job is to administer the law once it has been made. And of course, the legislature is there to legislate. So its main job was to make the law. And at the time, I will just tell you, everyone thought that the big gorilla in the room was Congress, that it would be, by far, the most powerful organization. The framers simply did not anticipate how powerful both the judiciary and the president would become over time. So what happens if, for example, the Congress and the president don't get along? | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So its main job was to make the law. And at the time, I will just tell you, everyone thought that the big gorilla in the room was Congress, that it would be, by far, the most powerful organization. The framers simply did not anticipate how powerful both the judiciary and the president would become over time. So what happens if, for example, the Congress and the president don't get along? Well, it happens quite a lot. The president could refuse to accept laws passed by Congress. He can veto them. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So what happens if, for example, the Congress and the president don't get along? Well, it happens quite a lot. The president could refuse to accept laws passed by Congress. He can veto them. In that event, Congress could only override it if 2 thirds of both the House and the Senate voted to do so. Congress, on the other hand, can pressure the president in various ways. They can hold hearings investigating his conduct of various issues. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
He can veto them. In that event, Congress could only override it if 2 thirds of both the House and the Senate voted to do so. Congress, on the other hand, can pressure the president in various ways. They can hold hearings investigating his conduct of various issues. They can defund agencies of the executive branch whose job performance they don't like. They can refuse to confirm the president's appointees to various offices. And in extreme cases that have happened a couple of times in our history, Congress can even impeach the president. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
They can hold hearings investigating his conduct of various issues. They can defund agencies of the executive branch whose job performance they don't like. They can refuse to confirm the president's appointees to various offices. And in extreme cases that have happened a couple of times in our history, Congress can even impeach the president. And if he gets convicted in the Senate, then he would be removed from office. This is what led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. The House of Representatives impeached him. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And in extreme cases that have happened a couple of times in our history, Congress can even impeach the president. And if he gets convicted in the Senate, then he would be removed from office. This is what led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. The House of Representatives impeached him. And Nixon resigned before he could be tried in the Senate. President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton were also both impeached. And in both cases, the Senate ultimately acquitted them. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The House of Representatives impeached him. And Nixon resigned before he could be tried in the Senate. President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton were also both impeached. And in both cases, the Senate ultimately acquitted them. But it was still a very painful time for both of those presidents. So speaking of antagonistic relationships, I think one thing that's really come to dominate Congress is partisanship. To what extent did the Constitution anticipate this rise of parties and partisanship? | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And in both cases, the Senate ultimately acquitted them. But it was still a very painful time for both of those presidents. So speaking of antagonistic relationships, I think one thing that's really come to dominate Congress is partisanship. To what extent did the Constitution anticipate this rise of parties and partisanship? They actually knew about parties to some degree from their British experience. But they were very suspicious of them. And they hoped and perhaps expected that they wouldn't emerge in America to anything like the same extent that they had in Britain. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
To what extent did the Constitution anticipate this rise of parties and partisanship? They actually knew about parties to some degree from their British experience. But they were very suspicious of them. And they hoped and perhaps expected that they wouldn't emerge in America to anything like the same extent that they had in Britain. But in actual fact, within a few years after the adoption of the Constitution, we already had the first party system, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. And partisan alignments have played a big role in Congress ever since then. So even back then, there were rival interpretations of how the Constitution should be carried out and what kind of power the national government should wield. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And they hoped and perhaps expected that they wouldn't emerge in America to anything like the same extent that they had in Britain. But in actual fact, within a few years after the adoption of the Constitution, we already had the first party system, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. And partisan alignments have played a big role in Congress ever since then. So even back then, there were rival interpretations of how the Constitution should be carried out and what kind of power the national government should wield. But they somehow thought, naively, I think, that the parties would disappear and that people would have allegiances to their state or to their region, but they wouldn't have allegiance to a party. That broke down completely almost immediately after the Constitution was written. That leads to a real problem these days, because most modern constitutions recognize that there will be two parties, that they will be in competition with one another, and that part of the job of the Constitution is to regulate that competition. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So even back then, there were rival interpretations of how the Constitution should be carried out and what kind of power the national government should wield. But they somehow thought, naively, I think, that the parties would disappear and that people would have allegiances to their state or to their region, but they wouldn't have allegiance to a party. That broke down completely almost immediately after the Constitution was written. That leads to a real problem these days, because most modern constitutions recognize that there will be two parties, that they will be in competition with one another, and that part of the job of the Constitution is to regulate that competition. Would the founders have done anything differently? If they had known about parties and expected that they would play such a big role, it's hard to know for sure. But maybe they would have been less confident than some of them were that Congress would always stand up for its prerogatives against the president. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
That leads to a real problem these days, because most modern constitutions recognize that there will be two parties, that they will be in competition with one another, and that part of the job of the Constitution is to regulate that competition. Would the founders have done anything differently? If they had known about parties and expected that they would play such a big role, it's hard to know for sure. But maybe they would have been less confident than some of them were that Congress would always stand up for its prerogatives against the president. When the president and Congress are of the same party, I think often Congress is inclined to overlook various presidential abuses. If the reverse is true, things might be very difficult to do. Exactly. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But maybe they would have been less confident than some of them were that Congress would always stand up for its prerogatives against the president. When the president and Congress are of the same party, I think often Congress is inclined to overlook various presidential abuses. If the reverse is true, things might be very difficult to do. Exactly. I mean, the whole point about them needing to act, needing one another to act, is really a problem if one side isn't trying to stick to the other side. One other thing we see here in Article 1 is talking about what the federal government does versus what the states do. So this is the idea of federalism, then. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Exactly. I mean, the whole point about them needing to act, needing one another to act, is really a problem if one side isn't trying to stick to the other side. One other thing we see here in Article 1 is talking about what the federal government does versus what the states do. So this is the idea of federalism, then. Could you tell us a little bit more just about what federalism is and how it's supposed to work? So the way that we understand federalism back then was that there was a division of labor. The states would regulate things that were inside their territories and accorded to them in terms of responsibility. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So this is the idea of federalism, then. Could you tell us a little bit more just about what federalism is and how it's supposed to work? So the way that we understand federalism back then was that there was a division of labor. The states would regulate things that were inside their territories and accorded to them in terms of responsibility. And the federal government would regulate everything that was accorded to it under the Constitution. The problem is, as Congress's power became more and more expansive, it ended up regulating in the same areas that the states regulate. So if the federal government and the states have a law on the same topic, who wins? | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The states would regulate things that were inside their territories and accorded to them in terms of responsibility. And the federal government would regulate everything that was accorded to it under the Constitution. The problem is, as Congress's power became more and more expansive, it ended up regulating in the same areas that the states regulate. So if the federal government and the states have a law on the same topic, who wins? As long as it's passed properly by the federal government, the federal government wins. So if there is a federal law and the state law is inconsistent with it, the state law is displaced. Is there anything that might surprise the framers about how our Congress operates today? | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So if the federal government and the states have a law on the same topic, who wins? As long as it's passed properly by the federal government, the federal government wins. So if there is a federal law and the state law is inconsistent with it, the state law is displaced. Is there anything that might surprise the framers about how our Congress operates today? When the framers created Article 1 and drafted it, they certainly expected that Congress would have more power under the Constitution than it did under the Articles of Confederation. But I don't think very many of them would have believed that Congress would ever be able to do things like forbid the growth of medical marijuana in your backyard, or regulate what kind of toilet you're allowed to have in your house, or for that matter, do something like the war on drugs, which forbids the possession of drugs throughout the country and the like. Originally, the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is the authority under which most of these things are done, it was at the time conceived of as a power for Congress to break down trade barriers between states and perhaps regulate the actual shipment or trade in goods and services across state lines. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Is there anything that might surprise the framers about how our Congress operates today? When the framers created Article 1 and drafted it, they certainly expected that Congress would have more power under the Constitution than it did under the Articles of Confederation. But I don't think very many of them would have believed that Congress would ever be able to do things like forbid the growth of medical marijuana in your backyard, or regulate what kind of toilet you're allowed to have in your house, or for that matter, do something like the war on drugs, which forbids the possession of drugs throughout the country and the like. Originally, the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is the authority under which most of these things are done, it was at the time conceived of as a power for Congress to break down trade barriers between states and perhaps regulate the actual shipment or trade in goods and services across state lines. It was not until the 20th century, particularly after the New Deal, that Congress was able to start using this as a power to regulate nearly every aspect of human life that might, in some respect, affect the national economy. So that, I think, is a huge change. I think what would really surprise the framers is how willing Congress has been to give up its own power. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Originally, the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is the authority under which most of these things are done, it was at the time conceived of as a power for Congress to break down trade barriers between states and perhaps regulate the actual shipment or trade in goods and services across state lines. It was not until the 20th century, particularly after the New Deal, that Congress was able to start using this as a power to regulate nearly every aspect of human life that might, in some respect, affect the national economy. So that, I think, is a huge change. I think what would really surprise the framers is how willing Congress has been to give up its own power. So Congress has given the president a lot of power because it's created administrative agencies with vaguely defined mandates that therefore allow the president to use this entire administrative agency apparatus to pursue his goals. So we've learned that Article I of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch of US government, which is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. These two bodies were created to balance popular power with elite power, since members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, whereas senators were appointed by state legislatures. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
I think what would really surprise the framers is how willing Congress has been to give up its own power. So Congress has given the president a lot of power because it's created administrative agencies with vaguely defined mandates that therefore allow the president to use this entire administrative agency apparatus to pursue his goals. So we've learned that Article I of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch of US government, which is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. These two bodies were created to balance popular power with elite power, since members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, whereas senators were appointed by state legislatures. Although one major change is that senators are now elected as well, what might really surprise the framers about Congress today is how its power has evolved over time. On one hand, as Heather Gerken mentioned, the powers of the president and the Supreme Court have grown compared to the powers of Congress. But on the other hand, as Ilya Solman points out, the framers might be surprised at just how much of our lives Congress can regulate today. | Article I of the Constitution US Government and Politics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And now when we talk about revenue for the federal government that primarily comes in the form of taxes. And what we see in this visual, it shows the four basic types of taxes that the federal government collects. You have individual income taxes, which you are probably familiar with. If you ever get a pay stub and if you thought you were making, let's say $1,000 in a pay period, you might see your paycheck is closer to $600 because there might be individual income taxes taken out at both the federal and the state level. Then you have payroll taxes. And unless you are an employer, you might not be familiar with payroll taxes. Above and beyond your individual income taxes, your employer also pays taxes called payroll taxes. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
If you ever get a pay stub and if you thought you were making, let's say $1,000 in a pay period, you might see your paycheck is closer to $600 because there might be individual income taxes taken out at both the federal and the state level. Then you have payroll taxes. And unless you are an employer, you might not be familiar with payroll taxes. Above and beyond your individual income taxes, your employer also pays taxes called payroll taxes. Now these are primarily to pay for things like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance. And some of you are saying, well, don't they take that out of my individual income taxes as well? And the answer is yes, but above and beyond what is individually paid by you, they also take payroll taxes to fund that. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
Above and beyond your individual income taxes, your employer also pays taxes called payroll taxes. Now these are primarily to pay for things like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance. And some of you are saying, well, don't they take that out of my individual income taxes as well? And the answer is yes, but above and beyond what is individually paid by you, they also take payroll taxes to fund that. Corporate taxes are taxes on corporations' profits. And excise taxes, which you don't hear folks talk a lot about these days, but these are taxes on things like gasoline or alcohol and tobacco or airline tickets that are usually baked into those products. And those taxes can oftentimes go to the federal government. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
And the answer is yes, but above and beyond what is individually paid by you, they also take payroll taxes to fund that. Corporate taxes are taxes on corporations' profits. And excise taxes, which you don't hear folks talk a lot about these days, but these are taxes on things like gasoline or alcohol and tobacco or airline tickets that are usually baked into those products. And those taxes can oftentimes go to the federal government. Now pause this video and see if you see any interesting trends. This visual here shows the breakdown between these four taxes for the federal government's revenue and how it's changed from 1950 all the way to 2015. Well, it looks like individual income taxes as a percent of total government revenue has stayed roughly stable. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
And those taxes can oftentimes go to the federal government. Now pause this video and see if you see any interesting trends. This visual here shows the breakdown between these four taxes for the federal government's revenue and how it's changed from 1950 all the way to 2015. Well, it looks like individual income taxes as a percent of total government revenue has stayed roughly stable. But what you see is that payroll taxes have grown dramatically, while corporate taxes have shrunk. Payroll taxes have gone from 11% of the federal government's revenue in 1950 to nearly 1 3rd of the federal government's revenue in 2015. Corporate taxes have gone down from 26.5% all the way down to 10.6%. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, it looks like individual income taxes as a percent of total government revenue has stayed roughly stable. But what you see is that payroll taxes have grown dramatically, while corporate taxes have shrunk. Payroll taxes have gone from 11% of the federal government's revenue in 1950 to nearly 1 3rd of the federal government's revenue in 2015. Corporate taxes have gone down from 26.5% all the way down to 10.6%. And excise taxes are a very small percentage. They used to be a significant part, but they are now a very small part of total government revenue. Now one thing to keep in mind, this visual over here just shows the breakdown. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
Corporate taxes have gone down from 26.5% all the way down to 10.6%. And excise taxes are a very small percentage. They used to be a significant part, but they are now a very small part of total government revenue. Now one thing to keep in mind, this visual over here just shows the breakdown. It's not showing the absolute level. If you were seeing the absolute level of government revenue, you would see that grow as the nation's GDP grew as well. But in big categories, where does that revenue get spent? | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
Now one thing to keep in mind, this visual over here just shows the breakdown. It's not showing the absolute level. If you were seeing the absolute level of government revenue, you would see that grow as the nation's GDP grew as well. But in big categories, where does that revenue get spent? Well, this is a similar diagram that shows the breakdown of outlays by the federal government from 1962 all the way, and these are going into projected outlays, to 2020. At the time of this video, we are right over here in 2017, and this chart was made in 2016, so it was made at around this time. But you see a couple of big categories. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
But in big categories, where does that revenue get spent? Well, this is a similar diagram that shows the breakdown of outlays by the federal government from 1962 all the way, and these are going into projected outlays, to 2020. At the time of this video, we are right over here in 2017, and this chart was made in 2016, so it was made at around this time. But you see a couple of big categories. You first see the mandatory outlays, and in parentheses it says on autopilot. What does that mean? Well, these are commitments that the federal government has already made by law to people. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
But you see a couple of big categories. You first see the mandatory outlays, and in parentheses it says on autopilot. What does that mean? Well, these are commitments that the federal government has already made by law to people. These are things like entitlements, like Social Security, like Medicare, and one interesting trend is these have grown in 1962 from 25% of the total federal budget to a projected almost 2 3rds of the federal budget in 2020. Now, the discretionary outlays are things that when we talk about the appropriations committees in the Senate or the House, this is what they're debating where to spend the money, and even though it might sound something that's just a nice to have, there's some pretty important things in the discretionary budget, things like military expenditure. And as you can see, the discretionary budget has gone from over 2 3rds of federal outlays to a little under 1 4th projected in 2020. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, these are commitments that the federal government has already made by law to people. These are things like entitlements, like Social Security, like Medicare, and one interesting trend is these have grown in 1962 from 25% of the total federal budget to a projected almost 2 3rds of the federal budget in 2020. Now, the discretionary outlays are things that when we talk about the appropriations committees in the Senate or the House, this is what they're debating where to spend the money, and even though it might sound something that's just a nice to have, there's some pretty important things in the discretionary budget, things like military expenditure. And as you can see, the discretionary budget has gone from over 2 3rds of federal outlays to a little under 1 4th projected in 2020. And then this top category, net interest, well, the federal government has a debt, and anyone who has a debt tends to pay interest on that debt. And so many people will often categorize this as a mandatory outlay as well because we need to pay the interest on that debt even though it's not officially a mandatory outlay. And to see how significant these entitlement programs are and how big of an impact they have, not just on the federal government's budget, but as a percentage of GDP, we have this visual right over here. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
And as you can see, the discretionary budget has gone from over 2 3rds of federal outlays to a little under 1 4th projected in 2020. And then this top category, net interest, well, the federal government has a debt, and anyone who has a debt tends to pay interest on that debt. And so many people will often categorize this as a mandatory outlay as well because we need to pay the interest on that debt even though it's not officially a mandatory outlay. And to see how significant these entitlement programs are and how big of an impact they have, not just on the federal government's budget, but as a percentage of GDP, we have this visual right over here. And once again, this is projecting well into the future. This chart was created in 2016, so right about here, but you can see that these mandatory outlays as a percentage of the GDP here, so this is not just as a percentage of the budget, they are growing and growing and growing and expected to keep on growing while total revenue as a percentage of GDP is expected to stay flat. And take all of this with a grain of salt. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
And to see how significant these entitlement programs are and how big of an impact they have, not just on the federal government's budget, but as a percentage of GDP, we have this visual right over here. And once again, this is projecting well into the future. This chart was created in 2016, so right about here, but you can see that these mandatory outlays as a percentage of the GDP here, so this is not just as a percentage of the budget, they are growing and growing and growing and expected to keep on growing while total revenue as a percentage of GDP is expected to stay flat. And take all of this with a grain of salt. This is based on assumptions made at the time when this diagram was made. If we have varying levels of economic growth or the tax policies change, it's possible that the total revenue as a percentage of GDP might change. Also, if there are changes to some of these entitlement programs like Social Security or the healthcare programs or some of the cost assumptions baked into this chart changes, well, then this diagram might change. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
And take all of this with a grain of salt. This is based on assumptions made at the time when this diagram was made. If we have varying levels of economic growth or the tax policies change, it's possible that the total revenue as a percentage of GDP might change. Also, if there are changes to some of these entitlement programs like Social Security or the healthcare programs or some of the cost assumptions baked into this chart changes, well, then this diagram might change. But if you assume the data in this visual here, and the source is the White House in 2016, you see that the mandatory outlays from these entitlement programs and the net interest, which is also essentially mandatory, these are going to take up all of the revenue that the federal government collects. And so if the federal government wants to do anything above and beyond those things, discretionary spending, and once again, some of this discretionary spending is pretty important, like the military, well, then they would have to run a deficit in those years to fund those things or they would have to increase the total revenue. And the thing is, even once we get past this point, going to the 2040s all the way to the 2050s, it gets worse and worse and worse. | Discretionary and mandatory outlays of the US federal government Khan Academy.mp3 |
Now, why does this matter? Apart from just the innate value of voting rights in a democracy, it matters because who participates in the political process at any one time affects what political outcomes are. So as we go through these amendments and laws which increase voting rights, think about how each new group of voters might affect the overall opinion of the voting population. The first major expansion of voting rights happened in 1870 when the 15th Amendment was ratified. And the 15th Amendment extended suffrage, the right to vote, to African American men. And men in particular, at the time, women were also hoping to get the right to vote, but there really was only the political will to grant suffrage to African American men. Now, this happened immediately after the Civil War, which ended in 1865. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The first major expansion of voting rights happened in 1870 when the 15th Amendment was ratified. And the 15th Amendment extended suffrage, the right to vote, to African American men. And men in particular, at the time, women were also hoping to get the right to vote, but there really was only the political will to grant suffrage to African American men. Now, this happened immediately after the Civil War, which ended in 1865. Before the Civil War, really only white men had the right to vote. Now, the Civil War ended slavery, but it didn't clear up the question of what the legal citizenship status of formerly enslaved men and women would be. And a lot of states in the South passed laws after the Civil War, specifically denying the right to vote to African American men. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Now, this happened immediately after the Civil War, which ended in 1865. Before the Civil War, really only white men had the right to vote. Now, the Civil War ended slavery, but it didn't clear up the question of what the legal citizenship status of formerly enslaved men and women would be. And a lot of states in the South passed laws after the Civil War, specifically denying the right to vote to African American men. So in 1870, Congress kind of fought back against this, and they passed the 15th Amendment, which was then ratified by the states. The next notable expansion of voting rights didn't concern so much who got to vote as who people got to vote for. In 1913, the states ratified the 17th Amendment, which provided for the popular election of senators. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And a lot of states in the South passed laws after the Civil War, specifically denying the right to vote to African American men. So in 1870, Congress kind of fought back against this, and they passed the 15th Amendment, which was then ratified by the states. The next notable expansion of voting rights didn't concern so much who got to vote as who people got to vote for. In 1913, the states ratified the 17th Amendment, which provided for the popular election of senators. So before 1913, senators were actually appointed by state legislatures instead of directly elected by citizens, like members of the House of Representatives. And switching to popular election of senators is important because it gives citizens more say over the national government. So more say over who goes into Congress, and therefore more say over what kinds of laws that Congress passes. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
In 1913, the states ratified the 17th Amendment, which provided for the popular election of senators. So before 1913, senators were actually appointed by state legislatures instead of directly elected by citizens, like members of the House of Representatives. And switching to popular election of senators is important because it gives citizens more say over the national government. So more say over who goes into Congress, and therefore more say over what kinds of laws that Congress passes. And in 1920, women finally got the right to vote in the 19th Amendment, which doubled the voting eligible population. Now let's talk about some more recent voting rights amendments and laws. In 1964 and 1965, there were two amendments and pieces of federal legislation that had a major impact on African American voting rights. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So more say over who goes into Congress, and therefore more say over what kinds of laws that Congress passes. And in 1920, women finally got the right to vote in the 19th Amendment, which doubled the voting eligible population. Now let's talk about some more recent voting rights amendments and laws. In 1964 and 1965, there were two amendments and pieces of federal legislation that had a major impact on African American voting rights. Now, although African American men technically got the right to vote in 1870, and African American women technically got the right to vote in 1920, there were a number of measures of voter suppression enacted in southern states that effectively prevented them from voting. One of these was the use of poll taxes, which is effectively paying money for the right to vote. The 24th Amendment outlawed that, and then the Voting Rights Act took that a step further by adding a number of other bans on voter suppression tactics in southern states. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
In 1964 and 1965, there were two amendments and pieces of federal legislation that had a major impact on African American voting rights. Now, although African American men technically got the right to vote in 1870, and African American women technically got the right to vote in 1920, there were a number of measures of voter suppression enacted in southern states that effectively prevented them from voting. One of these was the use of poll taxes, which is effectively paying money for the right to vote. The 24th Amendment outlawed that, and then the Voting Rights Act took that a step further by adding a number of other bans on voter suppression tactics in southern states. So in addition to poll taxes, the Voting Rights Act banned literacy tests and forms of voter suppression like grandfather clauses, which were laws that said you could only vote if your grandfather had voted. And while you might think, oh, literacy tests don't sound that bad, it seems like a good idea to have a literate voting population, literacy tests really weren't fair because they were administered by local voting boards who got to decide who was and was not literate. So if you were an African American man, you could have been a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and still had your local board say, oh, you're not literate, so you're not eligible to vote. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The 24th Amendment outlawed that, and then the Voting Rights Act took that a step further by adding a number of other bans on voter suppression tactics in southern states. So in addition to poll taxes, the Voting Rights Act banned literacy tests and forms of voter suppression like grandfather clauses, which were laws that said you could only vote if your grandfather had voted. And while you might think, oh, literacy tests don't sound that bad, it seems like a good idea to have a literate voting population, literacy tests really weren't fair because they were administered by local voting boards who got to decide who was and was not literate. So if you were an African American man, you could have been a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and still had your local board say, oh, you're not literate, so you're not eligible to vote. So things like poll taxes and literacy tests and grandfather clauses, nowhere in the language of these voting laws did they say you can't vote if you're black, but they were very carefully crafted to specifically single out and suppress the votes of African Americans. The Voting Rights Act also provided for federal examiners who had the power to register people to vote to monitor elections in jurisdictions that had large black populations, but few registered black voters. And this effort was enormously successful. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So if you were an African American man, you could have been a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and still had your local board say, oh, you're not literate, so you're not eligible to vote. So things like poll taxes and literacy tests and grandfather clauses, nowhere in the language of these voting laws did they say you can't vote if you're black, but they were very carefully crafted to specifically single out and suppress the votes of African Americans. The Voting Rights Act also provided for federal examiners who had the power to register people to vote to monitor elections in jurisdictions that had large black populations, but few registered black voters. And this effort was enormously successful. By the end of 1965, 250,000 new African American voters had been registered in southern states. So imagine how all of these new participants might change legislative outcomes. Okay, there are two more things I'd like to discuss. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And this effort was enormously successful. By the end of 1965, 250,000 new African American voters had been registered in southern states. So imagine how all of these new participants might change legislative outcomes. Okay, there are two more things I'd like to discuss. Now, one aspect of voting rights you might not have heard of is that until 1971, when the 26th Amendment was ratified, you had to be 21 years old to vote. Now, you can kind of guess at the reason behind this amendment based on its year. In 1971, the United States was involved in the Vietnam War and young men were being drafted. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Okay, there are two more things I'd like to discuss. Now, one aspect of voting rights you might not have heard of is that until 1971, when the 26th Amendment was ratified, you had to be 21 years old to vote. Now, you can kind of guess at the reason behind this amendment based on its year. In 1971, the United States was involved in the Vietnam War and young men were being drafted. So it would have been possible to be drafted for the US Army at age 18 without ever having cast a vote. It's amazing to think that the right to vote for 18-year-olds is less than 50 years old. The last piece of legislation that I want to talk about is the Motor Voter Act, which was passed in 1993. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
In 1971, the United States was involved in the Vietnam War and young men were being drafted. So it would have been possible to be drafted for the US Army at age 18 without ever having cast a vote. It's amazing to think that the right to vote for 18-year-olds is less than 50 years old. The last piece of legislation that I want to talk about is the Motor Voter Act, which was passed in 1993. The official name of this is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. But it's called the Motor Voter Act because it requires states to provide individuals with the opportunity to register to vote when they apply for or renew their driver's license. So this makes it easier to register to vote in the first place, and it makes it easier to maintain your voter registration if you move to a new state because you'll need to get a new driver's license. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The last piece of legislation that I want to talk about is the Motor Voter Act, which was passed in 1993. The official name of this is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. But it's called the Motor Voter Act because it requires states to provide individuals with the opportunity to register to vote when they apply for or renew their driver's license. So this makes it easier to register to vote in the first place, and it makes it easier to maintain your voter registration if you move to a new state because you'll need to get a new driver's license. So you can quickly make sure you get on the polls to vote in your new state. The Motor Voter Act also requires states to allow individuals to register by mail 30 days before a federal election, and to allow individuals to register to vote if they're going to an office providing services to people with disabilities or public assistance. So in general, the Motor Voter Act makes it easier for people to get registered to vote and to stay registered to vote. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So this makes it easier to register to vote in the first place, and it makes it easier to maintain your voter registration if you move to a new state because you'll need to get a new driver's license. So you can quickly make sure you get on the polls to vote in your new state. The Motor Voter Act also requires states to allow individuals to register by mail 30 days before a federal election, and to allow individuals to register to vote if they're going to an office providing services to people with disabilities or public assistance. So in general, the Motor Voter Act makes it easier for people to get registered to vote and to stay registered to vote. So it kind of removes barriers to political participation. So I know there's a lot of information here. It's a lot to take in, but the biggest thing to take away from this, again, is how participation affects outcomes. | Voting rights Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And we could start at the most foundational of ideas, and that's the notion of natural rights. John Locke, one of the significant Enlightenment thinkers, describes rights like life, liberty, and you might expect me to say pursuit of happiness, which is what we see in the Declaration of Independence, but John Locke refers to life, liberty, and property. But even though his version is a little bit different than what ends up in the Declaration of Independence, most historians believe that Thomas Jefferson was heavily influenced by John Locke's idea of natural rights when Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. And the idea here is that these are rights that people should be born with, that should never be taken away from them. And in the video on social contract, we talk about the idea of why someone would form a government. They would form a government, they would give some rights to a government in order to protect these basic rights, things like life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness. And so you might have some other rights that one would say in a state of nature people might have, the right to do physical harm on others, the right to imprison others, the right to tax others. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And the idea here is that these are rights that people should be born with, that should never be taken away from them. And in the video on social contract, we talk about the idea of why someone would form a government. They would form a government, they would give some rights to a government in order to protect these basic rights, things like life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness. And so you might have some other rights that one would say in a state of nature people might have, the right to do physical harm on others, the right to imprison others, the right to tax others. But in a social contract, we decide, hey, instead of everyone trying to figure out things on their own, let's give these rights to a government. And in exchange, the government should protect, should protect all of these rights for the individuals. And once again, this is review from the social contract video. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And so you might have some other rights that one would say in a state of nature people might have, the right to do physical harm on others, the right to imprison others, the right to tax others. But in a social contract, we decide, hey, instead of everyone trying to figure out things on their own, let's give these rights to a government. And in exchange, the government should protect, should protect all of these rights for the individuals. And once again, this is review from the social contract video. This is a notion of a social contract. Now the next question is, all right, so if we are willing to engage in this social contract with a government, what type of a government should it be? And throughout most of human history, governments have been things like monarchies, where you have a single individual, maybe a king or queen, an emperor, some type of a conqueror, who is the sovereign, who rules over the state. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And once again, this is review from the social contract video. This is a notion of a social contract. Now the next question is, all right, so if we are willing to engage in this social contract with a government, what type of a government should it be? And throughout most of human history, governments have been things like monarchies, where you have a single individual, maybe a king or queen, an emperor, some type of a conqueror, who is the sovereign, who rules over the state. But you could have, you could, instead of having one, you could have a small group, which would be an oligarchy. Or you could go to the other extreme, where the people are sovereign. And the word for that, and this is a key idea for the United States, is popular, popular sovereignty. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And throughout most of human history, governments have been things like monarchies, where you have a single individual, maybe a king or queen, an emperor, some type of a conqueror, who is the sovereign, who rules over the state. But you could have, you could, instead of having one, you could have a small group, which would be an oligarchy. Or you could go to the other extreme, where the people are sovereign. And the word for that, and this is a key idea for the United States, is popular, popular sovereignty. The people are sovereign. The government is accountable to the people. Sometimes this could be referred to as democracy. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And the word for that, and this is a key idea for the United States, is popular, popular sovereignty. The people are sovereign. The government is accountable to the people. Sometimes this could be referred to as democracy. Now the founding fathers of the United States were a little bit suspicious of pure democracy or direct popular sovereignty. They were afraid that if you start having factions and a majority faction were to come to power, if you have a straight democracy, then they might use that power to strip some of the natural rights of, say, their political enemies or people that they just don't agree with. And so you have this other idea of limited government. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
Sometimes this could be referred to as democracy. Now the founding fathers of the United States were a little bit suspicious of pure democracy or direct popular sovereignty. They were afraid that if you start having factions and a majority faction were to come to power, if you have a straight democracy, then they might use that power to strip some of the natural rights of, say, their political enemies or people that they just don't agree with. And so you have this other idea of limited government. Limited government. And some of the key things that limit the government, you could just say generally the rule of law, things like the Constitution, including how the government is structured, the checks and balances in it, the Bill of Rights, clearly is a check on government. And you don't just have limited government when you have a democracy. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And so you have this other idea of limited government. Limited government. And some of the key things that limit the government, you could just say generally the rule of law, things like the Constitution, including how the government is structured, the checks and balances in it, the Bill of Rights, clearly is a check on government. And you don't just have limited government when you have a democracy. You could have a limited government even in a monarchy. The United Kingdom is officially a constitutional monarchy where you have a monarch whose sovereign has very limited powers because of things like the rule of law. Now the last idea that we're going to talk about in this video is the notion of a republic or the idea of republicanism. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And you don't just have limited government when you have a democracy. You could have a limited government even in a monarchy. The United Kingdom is officially a constitutional monarchy where you have a monarch whose sovereign has very limited powers because of things like the rule of law. Now the last idea that we're going to talk about in this video is the notion of a republic or the idea of republicanism. Because the founding fathers didn't actually like calling the United States a democracy. Instead, they favored calling it a republic. And the word republic can mean different things to different people today, depending on what context you use. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
Now the last idea that we're going to talk about in this video is the notion of a republic or the idea of republicanism. Because the founding fathers didn't actually like calling the United States a democracy. Instead, they favored calling it a republic. And the word republic can mean different things to different people today, depending on what context you use. To some folks today, it means any form of government that's not a monarchy. To other folks, it means, okay, you have a democracy, you have popular sovereignty, but you have limited government. You still have rights that protect minorities, rights that make sure that even if people are not in the majority, they are protected. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And the word republic can mean different things to different people today, depending on what context you use. To some folks today, it means any form of government that's not a monarchy. To other folks, it means, okay, you have a democracy, you have popular sovereignty, but you have limited government. You still have rights that protect minorities, rights that make sure that even if people are not in the majority, they are protected. To the founding fathers, they had a version of this notion of republic. They did view a republic as something that would prevent the passions of an unfettered, pure democracy. But they thought it came mainly by having a representative democracy. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
You still have rights that protect minorities, rights that make sure that even if people are not in the majority, they are protected. To the founding fathers, they had a version of this notion of republic. They did view a republic as something that would prevent the passions of an unfettered, pure democracy. But they thought it came mainly by having a representative democracy. That if you had a smaller group of elected representatives, as opposed to everyone getting involved in every issue, that they could calm the passions of the crowds, so to speak. They also thought it was logistically more practical. Sure, ancient Athens could have something closer to a pure democracy, but that was just a small city-state. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
But they thought it came mainly by having a representative democracy. That if you had a smaller group of elected representatives, as opposed to everyone getting involved in every issue, that they could calm the passions of the crowds, so to speak. They also thought it was logistically more practical. Sure, ancient Athens could have something closer to a pure democracy, but that was just a small city-state. Well, here, even the 13 colonies were significantly more vast, and obviously, the United States would become even more vast than that. And to appreciate this notion of a republic, right over here is a quote from James Madison in The Federalist Papers, number 10. And just for some context on what The Federalist Papers even were, as we mentioned, shortly after the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers start drafting the Articles of Confederation. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
Sure, ancient Athens could have something closer to a pure democracy, but that was just a small city-state. Well, here, even the 13 colonies were significantly more vast, and obviously, the United States would become even more vast than that. And to appreciate this notion of a republic, right over here is a quote from James Madison in The Federalist Papers, number 10. And just for some context on what The Federalist Papers even were, as we mentioned, shortly after the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers start drafting the Articles of Confederation. They go into effect in 1781. But this is really a loose confederation of states that each individually think of themselves as sovereign states. And it's really a pact that they'll engage in war together, diplomacy together, free trade. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And just for some context on what The Federalist Papers even were, as we mentioned, shortly after the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers start drafting the Articles of Confederation. They go into effect in 1781. But this is really a loose confederation of states that each individually think of themselves as sovereign states. And it's really a pact that they'll engage in war together, diplomacy together, free trade. But you have Shay's Rebellion, and it's very clear, and we'll talk about this in other videos, that the Articles of Confederation are not powerful enough. And so you have a constitutional convention in mid-1787 in which James Madison is a central figure. Some people discuss him as the father of the US Constitution. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And it's really a pact that they'll engage in war together, diplomacy together, free trade. But you have Shay's Rebellion, and it's very clear, and we'll talk about this in other videos, that the Articles of Confederation are not powerful enough. And so you have a constitutional convention in mid-1787 in which James Madison is a central figure. Some people discuss him as the father of the US Constitution. They draft what is today the Constitution, but then they have to sell it to the states in order for it to be ratified. Alexander Hamilton has the idea of, hey, why don't we publish a series of papers? And they eventually publish 85 papers, which will collectively be known as The Federalist Papers. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
Some people discuss him as the father of the US Constitution. They draft what is today the Constitution, but then they have to sell it to the states in order for it to be ratified. Alexander Hamilton has the idea of, hey, why don't we publish a series of papers? And they eventually publish 85 papers, which will collectively be known as The Federalist Papers. And Hamilton writes most of them, but he also recruits James Madison and John Jay. And Federalist Papers Number 10, which is perhaps the most famous, is James Madison's discussion of how do you avoid factions taking over the government and doing things that are not in the interest of the people. And I encourage you to read all of Federalist Papers Number 10 but I have a very small quote here. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And they eventually publish 85 papers, which will collectively be known as The Federalist Papers. And Hamilton writes most of them, but he also recruits James Madison and John Jay. And Federalist Papers Number 10, which is perhaps the most famous, is James Madison's discussion of how do you avoid factions taking over the government and doing things that are not in the interest of the people. And I encourage you to read all of Federalist Papers Number 10 but I have a very small quote here. And this is James Madison's notion of what a republic was. And he thought the United States should be a republic. The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are, first, the delegation of government in the latter, so he's talking about a republic, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
And I encourage you to read all of Federalist Papers Number 10 but I have a very small quote here. And this is James Madison's notion of what a republic was. And he thought the United States should be a republic. The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are, first, the delegation of government in the latter, so he's talking about a republic, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. So he's really talking about representative democracy. But he thought this was a key component of being a republic. Secondly, the greater number of citizens and greater sphere of country over which the latter may be extended. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are, first, the delegation of government in the latter, so he's talking about a republic, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. So he's really talking about representative democracy. But he thought this was a key component of being a republic. Secondly, the greater number of citizens and greater sphere of country over which the latter may be extended. That only through a representative government could you actually govern over 13 colonies or even beyond 13 colonies. And that's why today, obviously, you might have had something closer to a pure democracy in ancient Athens, which was a city-state. But today, almost any democracy is some form of representative democracy, which James Madison would consider to be a republic. | Democratic ideals of US government.mp3 |