McDonald v. Chicago

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.180 --> 00:00:02.490
- [Kim] Hi, this is Kim from Khan Academy.

00:00:02.490 --> 00:00:06.220
And today we're learning more
about McDonald v. Chicago,

00:00:06.220 --> 00:00:08.730
a 2010 Supreme Court case

00:00:08.730 --> 00:00:12.400
challenging a handgun ban
in the City of Chicago.

00:00:12.400 --> 00:00:13.790
The question at issue

00:00:13.790 --> 00:00:17.060
was whether the 14th
Amendment's Due Process

00:00:17.060 --> 00:00:19.600
or Privileges or Immunities Clause

00:00:19.600 --> 00:00:21.590
means that the Second Amendment right

00:00:21.590 --> 00:00:25.030
to keep and bear arms for
the purposes of self-defense

00:00:25.030 --> 00:00:27.000
is applicable to the states.

00:00:27.000 --> 00:00:28.490
Or, put more plainly,

00:00:28.490 --> 00:00:30.830
the Second Amendment says
the federal government

00:00:30.830 --> 00:00:34.510
can't infringe on citizens
rights to keep and bear arms,

00:00:34.510 --> 00:00:36.200
but can state governments?

00:00:36.200 --> 00:00:38.640
To learn more about McDonald v. Chicago,

00:00:38.640 --> 00:00:40.160
I talked to two experts.

00:00:40.160 --> 00:00:43.900
Alan Gura is a lawyer who
argued McDonald v. Chicago

00:00:43.900 --> 00:00:45.480
before the Supreme Court.

00:00:45.480 --> 00:00:48.270
Elizabeth Wydra is a
Supreme Court litigator

00:00:48.270 --> 00:00:49.120
and the president

00:00:49.120 --> 00:00:51.760
of the Constitutional
Accountability Center.

00:00:51.760 --> 00:00:54.810
So, Miss Wydra, could
you set the stage for us?

00:00:54.810 --> 00:00:56.600
Who were the challengers in this case

00:00:56.600 --> 00:00:58.280
and why did they decide to sue?

00:00:58.280 --> 00:01:02.690
- [Elizabeth] The lead
plaintiff was Otis McDonald,

00:01:02.690 --> 00:01:05.350
then a 76-year-old African-American

00:01:05.350 --> 00:01:06.730
retired maintenance engineer

00:01:06.730 --> 00:01:09.570
who lived in a part of Chicago

00:01:09.570 --> 00:01:12.430
and wanted to have a gun for self-defense,

00:01:12.430 --> 00:01:14.190
a handgun,

00:01:14.190 --> 00:01:16.380
to protect himself and
his family at his home.

00:01:16.380 --> 00:01:17.320
He lived in a neighborhood

00:01:17.320 --> 00:01:20.110
that had grown increasingly troubled

00:01:20.110 --> 00:01:22.350
with gang and drug-related violence

00:01:22.350 --> 00:01:24.430
and he felt that he
wanted to have a handgun

00:01:24.430 --> 00:01:26.210
to protect his wife and his family

00:01:26.210 --> 00:01:29.420
after his home had been
broken into several times.

00:01:29.420 --> 00:01:31.380
But because the City of Chicago

00:01:31.380 --> 00:01:34.730
had strict rules barring handguns,

00:01:34.730 --> 00:01:37.710
he and three other Chicago residents

00:01:37.710 --> 00:01:39.070
brought their case into court,

00:01:39.070 --> 00:01:40.760
asking the Court to find

00:01:40.760 --> 00:01:43.590
that the individual right
to keep and bear arms,

00:01:43.590 --> 00:01:46.120
including a handgun for
self-defense in the home

00:01:46.120 --> 00:01:49.060
that had been recognized
just a few years earlier

00:01:49.060 --> 00:01:51.710
by the Supreme Court with respect
to the federal government,

00:01:51.710 --> 00:01:55.550
also applies to the states
and cities like Chicago.

00:01:55.550 --> 00:01:57.530
- [Alan] In 2008,

00:01:57.530 --> 00:01:59.860
the Supreme Court had held

00:01:59.860 --> 00:02:02.620
that the Second Amendment
to the Constitution

00:02:02.620 --> 00:02:05.700
guarantees Americans
the right to have guns

00:02:05.700 --> 00:02:07.600
for the purpose of self-defense.

00:02:07.600 --> 00:02:11.200
But that case took
place in Washington, DC,

00:02:11.200 --> 00:02:12.360
and Washington, DC,

00:02:12.360 --> 00:02:14.710
is sort of a unique creature in our law.

00:02:14.710 --> 00:02:15.940
It's a federal city,

00:02:15.940 --> 00:02:19.080
it's not located in any particular state,

00:02:19.080 --> 00:02:23.010
and so everything that the
City of Washington does

00:02:23.970 --> 00:02:27.900
is essentially done by
the federal government

00:02:27.900 --> 00:02:29.530
or a unit of the federal government

00:02:29.530 --> 00:02:33.550
to which the Bill of
Rights applies directly.

00:02:33.550 --> 00:02:34.900
But, historically,

00:02:34.900 --> 00:02:38.980
the Bill of Rights was never
thought to apply directly

00:02:38.980 --> 00:02:42.360
to limit what cities and states could do.

00:02:42.360 --> 00:02:45.160
- [Kim] So, what were some of
the competing interpretations

00:02:45.160 --> 00:02:47.350
that were at issue in this case?

00:02:47.350 --> 00:02:50.360
- [Alan] Well, there were
a number of interpretations

00:02:50.360 --> 00:02:51.420
that were at issue.

00:02:51.420 --> 00:02:54.430
The 14th Amendment has
several parts to it.

00:02:54.430 --> 00:02:56.720
In the first section of the 14th Amendment

00:02:56.720 --> 00:03:01.700
it states that no state
shall make or enforce any law

00:03:01.700 --> 00:03:04.680
which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities

00:03:04.680 --> 00:03:06.920
of citizens of the United States.

00:03:06.920 --> 00:03:09.700
And then it also says, among other things,

00:03:09.700 --> 00:03:13.020
that the states can't
deprive people of due process

00:03:14.030 --> 00:03:18.100
when it comes time to regulating

00:03:18.100 --> 00:03:19.730
their life, liberty, or property.

00:03:19.730 --> 00:03:22.690
States may not deprive anyone
of life, liberty, or property

00:03:22.690 --> 00:03:24.530
without due process of law.

00:03:24.530 --> 00:03:27.880
When it comes to your basic civil rights,

00:03:27.880 --> 00:03:29.080
the question had always been

00:03:29.080 --> 00:03:32.720
whether or not the states are bound

00:03:32.720 --> 00:03:34.670
not to violate your civil rights

00:03:34.670 --> 00:03:37.810
because they're told not to abridge

00:03:37.810 --> 00:03:41.160
the privileges or immunities
of American citizens,

00:03:41.160 --> 00:03:44.660
or are your rights not to be violated

00:03:44.660 --> 00:03:48.010
because the states can't deprive
you of due process of law.

00:03:48.010 --> 00:03:50.420
- [Elizabeth] So, when the
drafters of the 14th Amendment

00:03:50.420 --> 00:03:51.260
were coming together

00:03:51.260 --> 00:03:53.480
to think about what
rights would be protected

00:03:53.480 --> 00:03:54.900
in the 14th Amendment,

00:03:54.900 --> 00:03:59.150
they looked at a a lot of the
abuses by state governments

00:03:59.150 --> 00:04:01.850
of key rights that had
been previously protected

00:04:01.850 --> 00:04:04.900
against federal government
action in the Bill of Rights.

00:04:04.900 --> 00:04:06.120
And when they were debating

00:04:06.120 --> 00:04:09.110
what rights would be
included in these protections

00:04:09.110 --> 00:04:10.990
against state action,

00:04:10.990 --> 00:04:13.790
they talked repeatedly
about the importance

00:04:13.790 --> 00:04:17.060
of the right to keep and bear arms.

00:04:17.060 --> 00:04:18.410
But the way they talked about it

00:04:18.410 --> 00:04:19.930
was very different from the way

00:04:19.930 --> 00:04:24.680
that we think about the 18th
century Revolutionary Founders

00:04:24.680 --> 00:04:26.860
talking about the right
to keep and bear arms.

00:04:26.860 --> 00:04:29.270
In that case it was very
much about the militia

00:04:29.270 --> 00:04:31.480
and preventing the tyranny
of government action.

00:04:31.480 --> 00:04:33.230
In the 14th Amendment context,

00:04:33.230 --> 00:04:35.340
the right to keep and bear arms

00:04:35.340 --> 00:04:37.450
was very much an individual right.

00:04:37.450 --> 00:04:40.520
They were concerned about freed persons

00:04:40.520 --> 00:04:43.810
being subject to white militia violence

00:04:43.810 --> 00:04:45.660
and being able to protect themselves

00:04:45.660 --> 00:04:47.050
with a gun in their house.

00:04:47.050 --> 00:04:49.830
And so that was really one of the ways

00:04:49.830 --> 00:04:52.710
in which they wanted to
protect the individual right

00:04:52.710 --> 00:04:53.670
to keep and bear arms,

00:04:53.670 --> 00:04:54.710
different from the way

00:04:54.710 --> 00:04:56.730
that I think the Founders thought about it

00:04:56.730 --> 00:04:58.250
when they were drafting
the Second Amendment.

00:04:58.250 --> 00:05:00.000
- [Kim] Yeah, this is a
really interesting point

00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:04.960
because you can kinda see how
these things evolve over time.

00:05:04.960 --> 00:05:08.820
And particularly in the
1860s after the Civil War,

00:05:08.820 --> 00:05:12.440
there are many local or state statutes,

00:05:12.440 --> 00:05:13.640
know as the Black Codes,

00:05:13.640 --> 00:05:17.610
that specifically prevented
newly-freed African-Americans

00:05:17.610 --> 00:05:20.180
from owning firearms
or any kind of weapon.

00:05:20.180 --> 00:05:21.013
- [Elizabeth] Exactly,

00:05:21.013 --> 00:05:23.890
and that was a concern because,

00:05:23.890 --> 00:05:26.220
one, it was a right that
they considered to be

00:05:26.220 --> 00:05:27.590
a right of citizenship.

00:05:27.590 --> 00:05:29.810
But two, and more practically
and more immediately

00:05:29.810 --> 00:05:32.010
of concern for the people
who were being targeted

00:05:32.010 --> 00:05:33.870
by this racial violence,

00:05:33.870 --> 00:05:37.500
it was something that was
a question of life or death

00:05:37.500 --> 00:05:38.430
for them.

00:05:38.430 --> 00:05:40.980
And the debates on this

00:05:40.980 --> 00:05:43.040
by the drafters of the 14th Amendment

00:05:43.040 --> 00:05:45.030
were very clear and very colorful.

00:05:45.030 --> 00:05:48.470
Senator Samuel Pomeroy
described how indispensable

00:05:48.470 --> 00:05:50.580
the right to keep and bear arms was

00:05:50.580 --> 00:05:52.560
and how important it was
that the 14th Amendment

00:05:52.560 --> 00:05:53.580
protect that right.

00:05:53.580 --> 00:05:55.507
He said during the debates,

00:05:55.507 --> 00:05:58.007
"Every man should have
the right to bear arms

00:05:58.007 --> 00:06:01.307
"for the defense of himself
and family and his homestead.

00:06:01.307 --> 00:06:04.637
"And if the cabin door of
the freedman is broken open

00:06:04.637 --> 00:06:05.987
"and the intruder enters

00:06:05.987 --> 00:06:09.547
"for purposes as vile as
were known to slavery,

00:06:09.547 --> 00:06:11.117
"then should a well-loaded musket

00:06:11.117 --> 00:06:12.617
"be in the hand of the occupant

00:06:12.617 --> 00:06:15.037
"to send the polluted
wretch to another world

00:06:15.037 --> 00:06:18.130
"where his wretchedness will
forever remain complete."

00:06:18.130 --> 00:06:20.460
- [Kim] So, going back
to the McDonald case,

00:06:20.460 --> 00:06:23.650
how did the Court rule in this case?

00:06:23.650 --> 00:06:25.640
- [Alan] In McDonald,
we made two arguments

00:06:25.640 --> 00:06:26.980
for why we should win.

00:06:26.980 --> 00:06:28.210
The first argument we made

00:06:28.210 --> 00:06:31.090
was the historically more obvious one,

00:06:31.090 --> 00:06:35.280
although it's one that courts
had not often entertained.

00:06:35.280 --> 00:06:36.420
In essence, the argument says

00:06:36.420 --> 00:06:38.780
that when the 14th Amendment provided

00:06:38.780 --> 00:06:41.640
that people cannot be deprived

00:06:41.640 --> 00:06:44.600
of the privileges or immunities
of American citizenship,

00:06:44.600 --> 00:06:46.180
that means they couldn't be deprived

00:06:46.180 --> 00:06:49.020
of their basic fundamental rights.

00:06:49.020 --> 00:06:49.853
Right there in text,

00:06:49.853 --> 00:06:51.460
the 14th Amendment tells you

00:06:51.460 --> 00:06:53.160
that you can't be deprived

00:06:53.160 --> 00:06:55.850
of the rights of American citizenship.

00:06:55.850 --> 00:06:59.590
Secondly, we made the argument that,

00:06:59.590 --> 00:07:00.610
and this is the argument

00:07:00.610 --> 00:07:03.320
that the courts have been
more open to over the years,

00:07:03.320 --> 00:07:04.210
we made the argument

00:07:04.210 --> 00:07:06.580
that where the state is prohibited

00:07:06.580 --> 00:07:10.470
from depriving Otis McDonald
and other Chicago residents

00:07:10.470 --> 00:07:12.600
of due process of law,

00:07:12.600 --> 00:07:14.700
you can't deprive somebody of due process,

00:07:14.700 --> 00:07:16.270
that means not just that the state

00:07:16.270 --> 00:07:17.850
can't do things arbitrarily,

00:07:17.850 --> 00:07:19.580
not just that Otis McDonald

00:07:19.580 --> 00:07:22.740
is entitled to some procedural protections

00:07:22.740 --> 00:07:24.340
in the way that he's regulated

00:07:24.340 --> 00:07:26.140
but also that there are some results,

00:07:26.140 --> 00:07:28.600
some things that simply cannot be done.

00:07:28.600 --> 00:07:31.550
In taking away someone's firearms

00:07:31.550 --> 00:07:34.413
in violation of the
Second Amendment rights,

00:07:34.413 --> 00:07:38.170
it's not something that the state can do,

00:07:38.170 --> 00:07:41.740
there's no procedure that
the state could create

00:07:41.740 --> 00:07:42.870
to achieve that.

00:07:42.870 --> 00:07:44.620
They would still be considered

00:07:44.620 --> 00:07:47.190
to be giving somebody due process of law.

00:07:47.190 --> 00:07:49.680
- [Elizabeth] So, the Court
said what we have done

00:07:49.680 --> 00:07:51.980
when we've looked at individual rights

00:07:51.980 --> 00:07:54.060
under the 14th Amendment,

00:07:54.060 --> 00:07:56.280
and whether or not original
Bill of Rights rights

00:07:56.280 --> 00:07:57.870
that were initially understood

00:07:57.870 --> 00:08:00.540
to limit the federal government
applied to the states,

00:08:00.540 --> 00:08:03.140
it's looked at whether
or not they are part

00:08:03.140 --> 00:08:05.700
of what we generally talk about

00:08:05.700 --> 00:08:09.480
as fundamental to our
scheme of ordered liberty.

00:08:09.480 --> 00:08:11.160
Or, stated another day,

00:08:11.160 --> 00:08:14.520
the question is whether
the right is firmly rooted

00:08:14.520 --> 00:08:16.970
in this nation's history and tradition.

00:08:16.970 --> 00:08:18.410
And when they looked at that question

00:08:18.410 --> 00:08:20.220
with respect to the right
to keep and bear arms,

00:08:20.220 --> 00:08:22.500
they looked at a lot of
the reconstruction history

00:08:22.500 --> 00:08:24.520
and said this was clearly something

00:08:24.520 --> 00:08:27.600
that the drafters of the 14th Amendment

00:08:27.600 --> 00:08:31.650
considered to be very
fundamental to ordered liberty

00:08:31.650 --> 00:08:35.490
and thought that indeed the freed men,

00:08:35.490 --> 00:08:37.750
the African-American people of the South

00:08:37.750 --> 00:08:40.460
who had been subject to the slave power

00:08:40.460 --> 00:08:42.820
and people across the country

00:08:42.820 --> 00:08:45.850
who had been subject to
discrimination from the states

00:08:45.850 --> 00:08:47.860
should be able to look to the Constitution

00:08:47.860 --> 00:08:49.610
to protect the right to keep and bear arms

00:08:49.610 --> 00:08:50.930
as their individual right.

00:08:50.930 --> 00:08:54.560
Just as the Court had
held in the Heller case,

00:08:54.560 --> 00:08:56.290
they could be able to
look to the Constitution

00:08:56.290 --> 00:08:59.060
for protection of that right
against the federal government.

00:08:59.060 --> 00:09:00.460
- [Kim] So, in the McDonald case,

00:09:00.460 --> 00:09:02.840
how did the majority of the Court rule?

00:09:02.840 --> 00:09:06.260
- [Alan] The justices broke
down in multiple different ways.

00:09:06.260 --> 00:09:09.640
There were four justices,
led by Justice Alito,

00:09:09.640 --> 00:09:12.190
who refused to look any further

00:09:12.190 --> 00:09:14.470
at the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

00:09:14.470 --> 00:09:19.030
They thought it was old, it
was water under the bridge.

00:09:19.030 --> 00:09:21.450
They were not interested in looking to see

00:09:21.450 --> 00:09:25.740
whether or not the Court's
erasing of that provision

00:09:25.740 --> 00:09:26.660
was legitimate,

00:09:26.660 --> 00:09:29.620
even if it's widely agreed
to be illegitimate today.

00:09:29.620 --> 00:09:31.130
But the Court didn't wanna go there.

00:09:31.130 --> 00:09:33.850
And instead those four
justices, led by Justice Alito,

00:09:33.850 --> 00:09:38.600
held that the due process clause

00:09:38.600 --> 00:09:40.930
incorporates the Second Amendment right

00:09:40.930 --> 00:09:41.870
to keep and bear arms

00:09:41.870 --> 00:09:42.810
as against the states

00:09:42.810 --> 00:09:44.980
because it is a fundamental right,

00:09:44.980 --> 00:09:47.740
it's deeply rooted in our
nation's history and traditions,

00:09:47.740 --> 00:09:50.540
it's something that's very
basic to our understanding

00:09:50.540 --> 00:09:53.190
of our civil and political institutions.

00:09:53.190 --> 00:09:55.090
Four justices thought

00:09:55.090 --> 00:09:56.890
that the right to keep and
bear arms is fundamental.

00:09:56.890 --> 00:09:58.150
- [Elizabeth] So, there
was actually a debate

00:09:58.150 --> 00:10:00.330
among the members of the majority

00:10:00.330 --> 00:10:02.440
who all believed that there was a right

00:10:02.440 --> 00:10:05.380
to have a handgun in the
house for self-defense

00:10:05.380 --> 00:10:06.213
that was protected

00:10:06.213 --> 00:10:10.260
against state and local
government regulations.

00:10:10.260 --> 00:10:14.030
But Justice Thomas would
have found that right

00:10:14.030 --> 00:10:15.610
through another means.

00:10:15.610 --> 00:10:20.330
He would have looked at the
Privileges or Immunities Clause

00:10:20.330 --> 00:10:22.490
of the 14th Amendment

00:10:22.490 --> 00:10:25.540
instead of the now accepted method

00:10:25.540 --> 00:10:29.840
of looking at the due
process liberty clause

00:10:29.840 --> 00:10:31.010
of the 14th Amendment,

00:10:31.010 --> 00:10:33.560
which is how these other
provisions of the Bill of Rights

00:10:33.560 --> 00:10:36.240
have been incorporated against the states.

00:10:36.240 --> 00:10:37.940
There were many arguments,

00:10:37.940 --> 00:10:40.140
including I should say
a brief that I filed

00:10:40.140 --> 00:10:44.570
on behalf of scholars from
across the ideological spectrum

00:10:44.570 --> 00:10:46.040
who said that in fact

00:10:46.040 --> 00:10:48.900
the Privileges or Immunities
Clause of the 14th Amendment

00:10:48.900 --> 00:10:53.500
is the part of that
constitutional amendment

00:10:53.500 --> 00:10:55.810
that was intended to protect

00:10:55.810 --> 00:10:57.830
this particular substantive right

00:10:57.830 --> 00:11:00.680
as well as the other substantive rights

00:11:00.680 --> 00:11:02.330
of the Bill of Rights

00:11:02.330 --> 00:11:04.180
against state infringement.

00:11:04.180 --> 00:11:09.170
Justice Thomas' concurrence
did not get any other votes,

00:11:09.170 --> 00:11:10.990
whether from the people who were against

00:11:10.990 --> 00:11:12.030
the right to keep and bear arms

00:11:12.030 --> 00:11:12.950
and those who didn't,

00:11:12.950 --> 00:11:15.750
but it is an important contribution

00:11:15.750 --> 00:11:19.900
to thinking about how we understand rights

00:11:19.900 --> 00:11:23.070
and where they are protected
in the Constitution.

00:11:23.070 --> 00:11:25.830
- [Alan] Justice Thomas'
opinion in McDonald

00:11:25.830 --> 00:11:27.940
is groundbreaking.

00:11:27.940 --> 00:11:31.260
It represents the first time since 1868

00:11:31.260 --> 00:11:32.710
that the original meaning

00:11:32.710 --> 00:11:36.170
of the 14th Amendment's
Privileges or Immunities Clause,

00:11:36.170 --> 00:11:38.750
the basic protection that
we have for civil rights

00:11:38.750 --> 00:11:39.800
in this country

00:11:39.800 --> 00:11:41.860
against state and local governments

00:11:41.860 --> 00:11:45.200
was decisive in a case
at the Supreme Court.

00:11:45.200 --> 00:11:50.200
It's been that long since a
true original understanding

00:11:50.570 --> 00:11:52.730
of the 14th Amendment's language

00:11:52.730 --> 00:11:56.290
has finally proven to be decisive.

00:11:56.290 --> 00:11:58.240
- [Elizabeth] There
were of course justices

00:11:58.240 --> 00:12:01.000
who thought that there is
not an individual right

00:12:01.000 --> 00:12:04.690
to have a handgun in the
home for self-defense.

00:12:04.690 --> 00:12:08.790
These were the same
justices, not surprisingly,

00:12:08.790 --> 00:12:11.550
who thought that there wasn't
a Second Amendment right

00:12:12.529 --> 00:12:14.890
to be protected against
federal government action

00:12:14.890 --> 00:12:16.880
to keep a handgun in the
home for self-defense.

00:12:16.880 --> 00:12:20.290
They would have thought that
this was much more a right

00:12:20.290 --> 00:12:22.070
in the Second Amendment context

00:12:22.070 --> 00:12:24.570
that had to do with militia
service, military service,

00:12:24.570 --> 00:12:27.300
and therefore did not extend
to an individual right

00:12:27.300 --> 00:12:29.180
to have a gun in the
home for self-defense.

00:12:29.180 --> 00:12:31.250
- [Alan] McDonald's really
a 14th Amendment case.

00:12:31.250 --> 00:12:34.590
Guns happened to be the
things that was in it

00:12:34.590 --> 00:12:37.410
but I'd always seen it primarily

00:12:37.410 --> 00:12:39.200
as a 14th Amendment case.

00:12:39.200 --> 00:12:40.930
It's not really a case
that tells you anything

00:12:40.930 --> 00:12:42.933
about the scope of the Second Amendment.

00:12:44.020 --> 00:12:45.190
In fact, it doesn't say anything

00:12:45.190 --> 00:12:46.120
about the scope of the Second Amendment,

00:12:46.120 --> 00:12:47.460
very little.

00:12:47.460 --> 00:12:49.550
- [Elizabeth] There are many
issues left to be resolved

00:12:49.550 --> 00:12:51.420
in the Second Amendment context.

00:12:51.420 --> 00:12:53.030
The Heller case itself,

00:12:53.030 --> 00:12:54.950
which first articulated

00:12:54.950 --> 00:12:57.860
that there was a right for individuals

00:12:57.860 --> 00:13:01.120
to keep and bear arms in
their homes for self-defense

00:13:01.120 --> 00:13:02.930
made clear that it wasn't saying

00:13:02.930 --> 00:13:05.740
that there could be no gun regulation.

00:13:05.740 --> 00:13:08.150
That case, even though it was
written by Justice Scalia,

00:13:08.150 --> 00:13:09.780
and certainly in the McDonald case

00:13:09.780 --> 00:13:12.950
Justice Alito's majority
opinion reiterated this,

00:13:12.950 --> 00:13:15.640
said that while there were certain laws

00:13:15.640 --> 00:13:18.460
that would be struck
down as unconstitutional

00:13:18.460 --> 00:13:20.040
because they prohibited the possession

00:13:20.040 --> 00:13:21.640
of handguns in the home,

00:13:21.640 --> 00:13:23.250
they recognized at the same time

00:13:23.250 --> 00:13:24.660
that the right to keep and bear arms

00:13:24.660 --> 00:13:28.430
is not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever

00:13:28.430 --> 00:13:30.120
in any manner whatsoever

00:13:30.120 --> 00:13:31.800
and for whatever purpose.

00:13:31.800 --> 00:13:33.820
So given that the Court itself,

00:13:33.820 --> 00:13:37.220
and even very conservative
justices recognized

00:13:37.220 --> 00:13:41.040
that there could be and perhaps should be

00:13:41.040 --> 00:13:42.660
common sense limitations

00:13:42.660 --> 00:13:46.950
on both the types of
guns that are allowed,

00:13:46.950 --> 00:13:50.290
the manner in which they are allowed,

00:13:50.290 --> 00:13:53.280
and where they can be
taken and in what manner,

00:13:53.280 --> 00:13:57.580
then a lot of the gun
regulations that are being passed

00:13:57.580 --> 00:14:02.130
are still very much part of
the constitutional debate.

00:14:02.130 --> 00:14:05.270
We've seen frankly most
of the laws thus far

00:14:05.270 --> 00:14:07.930
be upheld as constitutional laws

00:14:07.930 --> 00:14:11.110
that for example target assault weapons,

00:14:11.110 --> 00:14:13.600
high-capacity magazines,

00:14:13.600 --> 00:14:16.830
and certain licensing and
registration requirements.

00:14:16.830 --> 00:14:21.690
So I think we will see more
cases to define the contours

00:14:21.690 --> 00:14:25.290
of the individual right keep and bear arms

00:14:25.290 --> 00:14:27.860
as these gun regulations get passed

00:14:27.860 --> 00:14:32.290
and as the courts get to pass
upon their constitutionality.

00:14:32.290 --> 00:14:35.220
- [Kim] So, we've learned
that the Supreme Court ruled

00:14:35.220 --> 00:14:38.410
that the 14th Amendment's
Due Process Clause

00:14:38.410 --> 00:14:40.880
that no state can deprive a citizen

00:14:40.880 --> 00:14:44.860
of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law

00:14:44.860 --> 00:14:48.160
did incorporate the Second
Amendment into the states

00:14:48.160 --> 00:14:49.000
under the reasoning

00:14:49.000 --> 00:14:52.230
that the right to keep and
bear arms for self-defense

00:14:52.230 --> 00:14:56.130
is fundamental to the nation's
scheme of ordered liberty.

00:14:56.130 --> 00:14:57.750
According to Alan Gura,

00:14:57.750 --> 00:15:00.200
even though this case was about guns,

00:15:00.200 --> 00:15:02.450
it was really a 14th Amendment case

00:15:02.450 --> 00:15:06.190
concerning whether states can
restrict citizens liberty.

00:15:06.190 --> 00:15:07.900
Elizabeth Wydra, however,

00:15:07.900 --> 00:15:10.030
cautions that the decision in McDonald

00:15:10.030 --> 00:15:13.370
didn't preclude any
restriction on gun ownership,

00:15:13.370 --> 00:15:16.560
and she suspects that new
cases will continue to define

00:15:16.560 --> 00:15:19.320
the individual right
to keep and bear arms.

00:15:19.320 --> 00:15:21.080
To learn more about this case,

00:15:21.080 --> 00:15:23.260
visit the National Constitution Center's

00:15:23.260 --> 00:15:24.880
Interactive Constitution,

00:15:24.880 --> 00:15:28.513
and Khan Academy's resources
on US government and politics.


Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - Course Trailer

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.100 --> 00:00:03.380
- The United States' Declaration
of Independence reads,

00:00:03.380 --> 00:00:07.030
we hold these truths to be self-evident

00:00:07.030 --> 00:00:09.982
that all men are created equal,

00:00:09.982 --> 00:00:12.470
that they are endowed by their creator

00:00:12.470 --> 00:00:15.720
with certain unalienable rights.

00:00:15.720 --> 00:00:19.590
That sounds great, but
who does it apply to?

00:00:19.590 --> 00:00:22.100
And what are those rights?

00:00:22.100 --> 00:00:25.100
That's what we are going to
discuss in these lessons.

00:00:26.547 --> 00:00:28.200
We're going to think about what rights

00:00:28.200 --> 00:00:29.890
do you have as an individual,

00:00:29.890 --> 00:00:33.260
and what rights might
you give up to the state.

00:00:33.260 --> 00:00:35.980
We'll talk about the
history of civil rights

00:00:35.980 --> 00:00:37.890
and civil liberties in the United States.

00:00:37.890 --> 00:00:41.290
Even though we have these very
powerful and very high-minded

00:00:41.290 --> 00:00:45.110
words in the Declaration
of Independence in 1776,

00:00:45.110 --> 00:00:48.280
not all men, and especially not all women,

00:00:48.280 --> 00:00:50.200
had these types of rights,

00:00:50.200 --> 00:00:54.683
as the nation was founded
in the 1780s and 1790s.

00:00:55.540 --> 00:00:58.000
How did that evolve,
and how will that story

00:00:58.000 --> 00:01:01.330
continue to evolve as the United States

00:01:01.330 --> 00:01:04.680
tries to become a more perfect union?

00:01:04.680 --> 00:01:07.210
In these lessons, we're gonna make sure

00:01:07.210 --> 00:01:09.670
we understand the difference between, say,

00:01:09.670 --> 00:01:12.210
a civil liberty and a civil right.

00:01:12.210 --> 00:01:15.150
We're also going to learn a
lot about the Bill of Rights

00:01:15.150 --> 00:01:17.830
and what liberties and
rights they protect.

00:01:17.830 --> 00:01:21.310
And finally, we're going to
learn how people have organized

00:01:21.310 --> 00:01:24.470
throughout American history to make change

00:01:24.470 --> 00:01:27.100
and to ensure that as a nation,

00:01:27.100 --> 00:01:29.960
we are as just of a nation as possible.

00:01:29.960 --> 00:01:32.620
And so whether your concern is

00:01:32.620 --> 00:01:35.470
what rights do I have if I get arrested

00:01:35.470 --> 00:01:39.920
to how do I make sure that
I live in a just society,

00:01:39.920 --> 00:01:42.640
these lessons are going
to be interesting for you.

00:01:42.640 --> 00:01:45.040
So I'm excited about going
on this journey with you.

00:01:45.040 --> 00:01:46.940
And if you want to learn more

00:01:46.940 --> 00:01:50.020
and get deep practice
with immediate feedback,

00:01:50.020 --> 00:01:53.933
I encourage you to look at these
lessons on KhanAcademy.org.


Article IV of the Constitution

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.240 --> 00:00:02.220
- [Kim] Hey, this is
Kim, from Khan Academy

00:00:02.220 --> 00:00:04.740
and today, I'm learning about Article IV

00:00:04.740 --> 00:00:06.510
of the U.S. Constitution.

00:00:06.510 --> 00:00:08.410
Article IV lays out the nuts and bolts

00:00:08.410 --> 00:00:11.100
of how Federalism, the
system of shared governance

00:00:11.100 --> 00:00:12.350
between states and the federal

00:00:12.350 --> 00:00:14.210
government works in practice.

00:00:14.210 --> 00:00:16.630
Article IV has four sections.

00:00:16.630 --> 00:00:19.320
The first two, the Full
Faith and Credit clause

00:00:19.320 --> 00:00:22.090
and the Privileges and Immunities clause

00:00:22.090 --> 00:00:25.630
talk about how states will
treat each other's citizens

00:00:25.630 --> 00:00:28.580
as well as they treat the
citizens of their own states.

00:00:28.580 --> 00:00:31.800
Then the third section
is an Admissions clause

00:00:31.800 --> 00:00:34.590
discussing how new states
will be added to the Union

00:00:34.590 --> 00:00:37.830
and the fourth section
is the Guarantee clause,

00:00:37.830 --> 00:00:39.980
which guarantees every state in the Union

00:00:39.980 --> 00:00:41.980
a Republican form of government.

00:00:41.980 --> 00:00:43.520
To learn more about Article IV

00:00:43.520 --> 00:00:45.600
I sought out the help of two experts.

00:00:45.600 --> 00:00:48.440
Erin Hawley is an
Associate Professor of Law

00:00:48.440 --> 00:00:49.940
at the University of Missouri.

00:00:49.940 --> 00:00:52.170
Her scholarship focuses
on the federal courts,

00:00:52.170 --> 00:00:54.580
and she teaches Constitutional Litigation,

00:00:54.580 --> 00:00:56.870
Tax Policy, and Agricultural Law.

00:00:56.870 --> 00:00:58.950
Professor Gabriel Chin is the Director

00:00:58.950 --> 00:01:02.460
of Clinical Legal Education
at the UC Davis School of Law.

00:01:02.460 --> 00:01:05.050
He's a teacher and scholar
of Immigration Law,

00:01:05.050 --> 00:01:07.550
criminal procedure, and race and law.

00:01:07.550 --> 00:01:09.700
Professor Hawley, can you
take us a little bit through

00:01:09.700 --> 00:01:12.230
why the framers included Article IV?

00:01:12.230 --> 00:01:13.917
What was its purpose?

00:01:13.917 --> 00:01:15.630
- [Professor Hawley] The
founders of the Constitution

00:01:15.630 --> 00:01:18.010
were very concerned that
the federal government

00:01:18.010 --> 00:01:19.630
be one of limited powers

00:01:19.630 --> 00:01:22.850
and, because of that, they saw the states

00:01:22.850 --> 00:01:25.900
as having an active and
critical role in placing

00:01:25.900 --> 00:01:27.930
a check on the federal government.

00:01:27.930 --> 00:01:29.860
So, we've got the three branches

00:01:29.860 --> 00:01:31.530
and their own checks and balances

00:01:31.530 --> 00:01:33.320
and then we've got the federal government

00:01:33.320 --> 00:01:36.700
and the state government
also playing a role in

00:01:36.700 --> 00:01:38.440
checking and balancing each other.

00:01:38.440 --> 00:01:39.750
They wanted to establish a

00:01:39.750 --> 00:01:41.700
strong central government, but also to

00:01:41.700 --> 00:01:43.610
ensure that it didn't have too much power,

00:01:43.610 --> 00:01:46.130
and the states were
critical to this effort.

00:01:46.130 --> 00:01:47.750
Also, they very much wanted the states

00:01:47.750 --> 00:01:50.790
to act collectively, not individually.

00:01:50.790 --> 00:01:53.940
As you'll recall, the states
had not been doing so well

00:01:53.940 --> 00:01:55.500
under the loose Articles
of the Confederation.

00:01:55.500 --> 00:01:57.630
They'd sort of been going it alone

00:01:57.630 --> 00:02:00.000
on critical issues like trade and defense

00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:01.910
to the detriment of the Union.

00:02:01.910 --> 00:02:03.370
So, Article IV is also

00:02:03.370 --> 00:02:05.731
a, sort of, key to making
sure that the states act,

00:02:05.731 --> 00:02:07.410
sort of, as a unified whole,

00:02:07.410 --> 00:02:09.240
rather than going it alone.

00:02:09.240 --> 00:02:10.650
- [Professor Chin] It's
one country made up

00:02:10.650 --> 00:02:13.360
of diverse states, and

00:02:13.360 --> 00:02:16.130
if you prefer the way

00:02:16.130 --> 00:02:18.823
things are done in Nevada,

00:02:19.760 --> 00:02:20.930
you can move there.

00:02:20.930 --> 00:02:24.540
And if you think that some
other state has a better set

00:02:24.540 --> 00:02:29.540
of answers to the problems
of modern life, you can move.

00:02:30.970 --> 00:02:32.710
What the Full Faith and
Credit clause and the

00:02:32.710 --> 00:02:35.540
Privileges and Immunities
clause are designed to do

00:02:35.540 --> 00:02:39.740
is to facilitate transactions,
to facilitate moving,

00:02:39.740 --> 00:02:44.740
to facilitate communications and commerce

00:02:45.000 --> 00:02:47.930
and trade and travel, among the states.

00:02:47.930 --> 00:02:50.270
But that doesn't mean that what's going on

00:02:50.270 --> 00:02:53.120
in each of the states can't
be very, very different.

00:02:53.120 --> 00:02:55.400
- [Kim] We often think
of checks and balances

00:02:55.400 --> 00:02:57.160
as being something that was designed

00:02:57.160 --> 00:02:58.580
to be kind of horizontal.

00:02:58.580 --> 00:03:02.560
That the Legislature
and the Executive branch

00:03:02.560 --> 00:03:03.650
and the Judicial branch,

00:03:03.650 --> 00:03:05.860
just kind of all at the same
level checking each other.

00:03:05.860 --> 00:03:07.140
But there's also kind of this

00:03:07.140 --> 00:03:09.680
vertical checks and
balances happening, too,

00:03:09.680 --> 00:03:11.480
between the power of
the federal government,

00:03:11.480 --> 00:03:12.313
the power of the states,

00:03:12.313 --> 00:03:14.706
and the power of the local governments.

00:03:14.706 --> 00:03:17.100
- [Professor Hawley]
Absolutely; we've got the, the,

00:03:17.100 --> 00:03:19.080
three branches and their
checks and balances.

00:03:19.080 --> 00:03:21.710
But we also have a
strong central government

00:03:21.710 --> 00:03:23.390
that's checked in large part by

00:03:23.390 --> 00:03:26.190
strong, independent, sovereign governments

00:03:26.190 --> 00:03:28.490
in each of the 50 states and these states

00:03:28.490 --> 00:03:30.650
traditionally have what
are known as Police Powers,

00:03:30.650 --> 00:03:34.190
so they have a lot of
inherent authority to govern

00:03:34.190 --> 00:03:38.250
the people in those states,
subject to federal law.

00:03:38.250 --> 00:03:41.120
But it really does sort
of place a check on

00:03:41.120 --> 00:03:43.250
federal authority, and I
think this is precisely

00:03:43.250 --> 00:03:44.800
what the framers wanted
because they did want

00:03:44.800 --> 00:03:48.360
a strong government, but
they also were very much

00:03:48.360 --> 00:03:50.440
of the view that states were important,

00:03:50.440 --> 00:03:51.730
that their own states were important

00:03:51.730 --> 00:03:55.230
and they didn't want to
lose that in the new,

00:03:55.230 --> 00:03:57.730
new Constitution and
new federal government.

00:03:57.730 --> 00:04:00.040
- [Kim] There are four sections

00:04:00.040 --> 00:04:03.030
in Article IV, and the first section

00:04:03.030 --> 00:04:04.810
deals with Full Faith and Credit.

00:04:04.810 --> 00:04:07.120
And it says Full Faith
and Credit shall be given

00:04:07.120 --> 00:04:08.740
in each State to the public Acts,

00:04:08.740 --> 00:04:12.400
Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State.

00:04:12.400 --> 00:04:15.260
What does Full Faith and
Credit actually mean?

00:04:15.260 --> 00:04:17.290
- [Professor Chin] It's designed to make,

00:04:17.290 --> 00:04:19.650
in a certain sense all of the states

00:04:19.650 --> 00:04:22.150
of the United States
part of a single system.

00:04:22.150 --> 00:04:25.470
And, so, Full Faith and Credit means that

00:04:25.470 --> 00:04:29.370
a court judgment, for
example, in one state,

00:04:29.370 --> 00:04:33.335
will be recognized in every state.

00:04:33.335 --> 00:04:35.000
- [Professor Hawley] If you
have a valid judgment in

00:04:35.000 --> 00:04:37.940
New York, for example, and
you move to California,

00:04:37.940 --> 00:04:40.310
the California courts are
required to give effect

00:04:40.310 --> 00:04:42.232
to that judgment, to that
state court judgment,

00:04:42.232 --> 00:04:44.980
so long as it was validly issued.

00:04:44.980 --> 00:04:47.400
There was a federal statute known as the

00:04:47.400 --> 00:04:49.750
Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA,

00:04:49.750 --> 00:04:51.990
that was passed under President Clinton,

00:04:51.990 --> 00:04:53.330
and recently the Supreme Court

00:04:53.330 --> 00:04:56.130
struck that down as unconstitutional.

00:04:56.130 --> 00:04:58.350
So now under Full Faith and
Credit if you're married in one

00:04:58.350 --> 00:04:59.935
state, you're married in
another state as well.

00:04:59.935 --> 00:05:02.233
- [Professor Chin] You can
see the kinds of problems

00:05:02.233 --> 00:05:04.400
that would exist if states

00:05:04.400 --> 00:05:07.690
didn't honor the legal decisions

00:05:07.690 --> 00:05:09.010
that were made by other states

00:05:09.010 --> 00:05:14.010
such as, who's married or who's divorced?

00:05:14.160 --> 00:05:16.920
Or who owns a particular
piece of property?

00:05:16.920 --> 00:05:20.840
Or whether a particular child

00:05:20.840 --> 00:05:22.980
is going to be in the custody of one

00:05:22.980 --> 00:05:24.910
parent rather than another?

00:05:24.910 --> 00:05:28.660
And the Full Faith and Credit
clause is designed to say

00:05:28.660 --> 00:05:31.410
in order for our system

00:05:31.410 --> 00:05:33.790
to work, as a unified whole,

00:05:33.790 --> 00:05:37.010
while it's true that the
courts of Georgia are

00:05:37.010 --> 00:05:39.280
distinct from the Courts
of New York, et cetera,

00:05:39.280 --> 00:05:42.200
they're separate systems, but they have

00:05:42.200 --> 00:05:46.780
to treat the work that each
other does with respect.

00:05:46.780 --> 00:05:49.470
- [Kim] If we move on to section two,

00:05:49.470 --> 00:05:52.980
this says that the Citizens of each State

00:05:52.980 --> 00:05:54.594
shall be entitled to all

00:05:54.594 --> 00:05:59.594
Privileges and Immunities of
Citizens in the several States.

00:05:59.660 --> 00:06:01.913
What are these Privileges and Immunities?

00:06:02.877 --> 00:06:05.000
- [Professor Hawley] The
Privileges and Immunities clause

00:06:05.000 --> 00:06:06.630
has been one that's subject to

00:06:06.630 --> 00:06:09.380
a number of, sort of, debate,

00:06:09.380 --> 00:06:12.910
in the courts and the academic literature.

00:06:12.910 --> 00:06:14.760
But, basically, Privileges
and Immunities have been

00:06:14.760 --> 00:06:17.070
construed to be those sorts of things

00:06:17.070 --> 00:06:18.930
that would go with citizenship.

00:06:18.930 --> 00:06:20.856
So, the right to travel, for example,

00:06:20.856 --> 00:06:22.300
is a Privilege and Immunity.

00:06:22.300 --> 00:06:23.980
Those sorts of things.

00:06:23.980 --> 00:06:26.040
- [Professor Chin] Occasionally
in American history,

00:06:26.040 --> 00:06:28.970
there have been moments where states

00:06:28.970 --> 00:06:32.370
didn't wanna let citizens of
other states come through,

00:06:32.370 --> 00:06:34.430
so during the Depression

00:06:34.430 --> 00:06:36.550
there was an effort by some states to

00:06:36.550 --> 00:06:41.550
limit the migration of people
from out of state to in state.

00:06:41.710 --> 00:06:45.400
And the Supreme Court said
that's not permissible.

00:06:45.400 --> 00:06:47.750
It also protects the right to travel.

00:06:47.750 --> 00:06:51.560
In 1999, the Supreme Court
dealt with a case called

00:06:51.560 --> 00:06:54.930
Saenz vs. Roe, and what
that case was about is that

00:06:54.930 --> 00:06:57.920
California had relatively generous

00:06:58.950 --> 00:07:03.320
welfare benefits and California wanted to

00:07:03.320 --> 00:07:04.270
set up its law

00:07:04.270 --> 00:07:06.140
in such a way that it
wouldn't encourage people

00:07:06.140 --> 00:07:08.420
from other states to move to California

00:07:08.420 --> 00:07:11.100
just to get the welfare benefits.

00:07:11.100 --> 00:07:12.640
And, so, what they did is, they said,

00:07:12.640 --> 00:07:14.170
that if you don't live in California,

00:07:14.170 --> 00:07:15.680
if you're moving from out of state

00:07:15.680 --> 00:07:18.200
and you apply for welfare benefits,

00:07:18.200 --> 00:07:19.910
then we're gonna give you the welfare

00:07:19.910 --> 00:07:21.260
benefits that you would have gotten

00:07:21.260 --> 00:07:22.910
in your state for the first year.

00:07:22.910 --> 00:07:25.510
We're not gonna give you the
higher California benefits,

00:07:25.510 --> 00:07:28.110
we're gonna give you
whatever you would've gotten

00:07:28.110 --> 00:07:29.680
where you came from.

00:07:29.680 --> 00:07:32.300
That's unconstitutional
and the Supreme Court said

00:07:32.300 --> 00:07:35.440
that violates the Privileges
and Immunities clause.

00:07:35.440 --> 00:07:38.121
We're one county, one nation.

00:07:38.121 --> 00:07:41.530
People are allowed to cross
the borders whenever they want.

00:07:41.530 --> 00:07:43.360
- [Kim] Interesting, but
there's this second part of it

00:07:43.360 --> 00:07:46.530
that says: No person held to Service

00:07:46.530 --> 00:07:49.080
or Labour in one State,
under the Laws thereof,

00:07:49.080 --> 00:07:51.500
escaping into another,
shall, in Consequence

00:07:51.500 --> 00:07:53.600
of any Law or Regulation therein,

00:07:53.600 --> 00:07:56.180
be discharged from Service or Labour.

00:07:56.180 --> 00:07:57.577
What is that all about?

00:07:57.577 --> 00:07:59.550
- [Professor Hawley] That is
one of the most unfortunate,

00:07:59.550 --> 00:08:02.580
probably the most unfortunate
clauses in our Constitution

00:08:02.580 --> 00:08:04.360
and it's known as the
Fugitive Slave clause

00:08:04.360 --> 00:08:06.960
and that title is pretty descriptive.

00:08:06.960 --> 00:08:10.890
If you have a slave, who is validly owned,

00:08:10.890 --> 00:08:14.320
as it were in those days,
under one states law and that

00:08:14.320 --> 00:08:17.340
person escaped to a free state,

00:08:17.340 --> 00:08:20.200
this clause gave the owner the right to

00:08:20.200 --> 00:08:24.220
reclaim that slave and put them back

00:08:24.220 --> 00:08:26.290
into, sort of, ownership
in their own state.

00:08:26.290 --> 00:08:27.370
- [Professor Chin] It is a sneaky way

00:08:27.370 --> 00:08:29.910
of talking about slavery and

00:08:29.910 --> 00:08:33.750
this compromise with slavery was necessary

00:08:33.750 --> 00:08:35.510
to create the United States.

00:08:35.510 --> 00:08:39.920
Slavery, the word, isn't
used in the Constitution.

00:08:39.920 --> 00:08:42.920
They only use these euphemisms,

00:08:42.920 --> 00:08:47.580
these, sort of, complicated
circumlocutions,

00:08:47.580 --> 00:08:49.637
and there's an argument that
there's a reason for that.

00:08:49.637 --> 00:08:51.400
And the reason for that is

00:08:51.400 --> 00:08:53.970
that a lot of the framers
of the Constitution

00:08:53.970 --> 00:08:56.630
didn't support slavery, opposed slavery.

00:08:56.630 --> 00:08:59.020
They did think that it
was important to have

00:08:59.020 --> 00:09:01.650
a United States and to
have a Constitution,

00:09:01.650 --> 00:09:03.270
so they wanted to,

00:09:03.270 --> 00:09:06.070
to do what was necessary to achieve that.

00:09:06.070 --> 00:09:08.240
But they did the absolute
minimum and they did it

00:09:08.240 --> 00:09:09.500
in such a way

00:09:09.500 --> 00:09:13.760
that, consciously, doesn't recognize

00:09:13.760 --> 00:09:17.170
and legitimize the institution of slavery.

00:09:17.170 --> 00:09:19.660
- [Kim] All right, so, then we get into

00:09:19.660 --> 00:09:22.630
New States and Territories.

00:09:22.630 --> 00:09:25.690
I think it was very forward-looking

00:09:25.690 --> 00:09:28.240
of the framers to recognize that

00:09:28.240 --> 00:09:30.140
new states wanna join the Union,

00:09:30.140 --> 00:09:31.970
and then to provide a process for that.

00:09:31.970 --> 00:09:33.170
Can you tell us a little bit about

00:09:33.170 --> 00:09:34.946
what that process was like?

00:09:34.946 --> 00:09:37.500
- [Professor Hawley] Article
IV, Section Three, Clause One

00:09:37.500 --> 00:09:40.180
provides the process for
admitting new states.

00:09:40.180 --> 00:09:42.580
Again, it recognizes that new states might

00:09:42.580 --> 00:09:44.430
want to join the Union,

00:09:44.430 --> 00:09:46.990
and it gives a wide latitude to Congress

00:09:46.990 --> 00:09:48.700
for admitting new states.

00:09:48.700 --> 00:09:50.410
Basically the process was that

00:09:50.410 --> 00:09:52.680
a territory would indicate to the Congress

00:09:52.680 --> 00:09:54.370
that it wished to become a state.

00:09:54.370 --> 00:09:56.600
Then they would submit a constitution

00:09:56.600 --> 00:09:58.520
and Congress would approve the new state.

00:09:58.520 --> 00:10:01.320
But the Constitution,
itself, in Article IV, places

00:10:01.320 --> 00:10:03.000
some limitationa on that.

00:10:03.000 --> 00:10:05.420
Some of the Eastern states were concerned

00:10:05.420 --> 00:10:07.180
that the large Western territories

00:10:07.180 --> 00:10:09.670
might become too influential.

00:10:09.670 --> 00:10:12.500
They had a couple of
provisions that no new state

00:10:12.500 --> 00:10:14.530
could be created out of an old state,

00:10:14.530 --> 00:10:17.580
nor could parts of states be combined

00:10:17.580 --> 00:10:19.720
to form a new state
unless there was consent

00:10:19.720 --> 00:10:21.400
from all of the involved states.

00:10:21.400 --> 00:10:24.790
- [Professor Chin] And it's
not so clear that, that

00:10:24.790 --> 00:10:29.580
purchase of territory
from foreign governments

00:10:29.580 --> 00:10:34.140
was a power that was granted
in the Constitution to anyone.

00:10:34.140 --> 00:10:35.940
Thomas Jefferson, who was the President

00:10:35.940 --> 00:10:37.980
at the time of the Louisiana Purchase,

00:10:37.980 --> 00:10:41.840
had doubts that the Louisiana
Purchase was Constitutional.

00:10:41.840 --> 00:10:44.190
He thought that it was
a great idea to purchase

00:10:44.190 --> 00:10:46.610
all that land, from France,

00:10:46.610 --> 00:10:47.950
but he thought that it would require

00:10:47.950 --> 00:10:50.850
a Constitutional Amendment
for the United States

00:10:50.850 --> 00:10:51.880
to have that power.

00:10:51.880 --> 00:10:54.960
This is different from
Texas joining the Union.

00:10:54.960 --> 00:10:58.040
But the House and the Senate didn't have

00:10:58.040 --> 00:11:02.110
the same qualms that
President Jefferson did

00:11:02.110 --> 00:11:04.450
and, so, they agreed

00:11:04.450 --> 00:11:07.940
to approve the Louisiana
Purchase and to fund it.

00:11:07.940 --> 00:11:11.280
When the bill got to Thomas
Jefferson's desk, he signed it.

00:11:11.280 --> 00:11:12.960
- [Kim] Moving on to Section Four,

00:11:12.960 --> 00:11:15.950
there's this promise, here,
that the federal government

00:11:15.950 --> 00:11:19.000
will guarantee every
state a Republican Form

00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:21.370
of Government, and shall
protect each of them

00:11:21.370 --> 00:11:24.020
against invasion or domestic violence.

00:11:24.020 --> 00:11:26.117
What does this mean?

00:11:26.117 --> 00:11:27.670
- [Professor Hawley] We
see here, in Article IV,

00:11:27.670 --> 00:11:30.490
the end of Article IV, a
really, sort of, famous

00:11:30.490 --> 00:11:34.290
and important promise to each
of the individual states.

00:11:34.290 --> 00:11:36.560
The federal government is promising

00:11:36.560 --> 00:11:39.040
to basically aid them in

00:11:39.040 --> 00:11:41.500
keeping a Republican form of government.

00:11:41.500 --> 00:11:44.620
As we'll remember, Benjamin
Franklin famously said,

00:11:44.620 --> 00:11:47.828
We've given you a republic
if you can keep it.

00:11:47.828 --> 00:11:48.780
(Kim laughs)

00:11:48.780 --> 00:11:50.260
- [Professor Chin] When
we talk about invasion,

00:11:50.260 --> 00:11:52.960
when Section Four talks about invasion,

00:11:52.960 --> 00:11:55.010
it's pretty clear that what
they're talking about is

00:11:55.010 --> 00:11:57.380
invasion by some hostile state.

00:11:57.380 --> 00:11:59.070
And, of course, during this period,

00:11:59.070 --> 00:12:01.630
there was continuing
conflict with England.

00:12:01.630 --> 00:12:04.840
And the idea is that if New York

00:12:04.840 --> 00:12:07.990
or South Carolina gets

00:12:07.990 --> 00:12:11.840
invaded by England, that's not
just that particular state's

00:12:11.840 --> 00:12:14.830
problem, it's the nation's problem and

00:12:14.830 --> 00:12:17.230
the national government has an obligation

00:12:17.230 --> 00:12:19.510
to protect against invasion.

00:12:19.510 --> 00:12:22.810
- [Kim] And I imagine it
also prevents someone from,

00:12:22.810 --> 00:12:25.460
for example, declaring
themselves the king of Maryland.

00:12:25.460 --> 00:12:27.210
- [Professor Chin] The Republican Form of

00:12:27.210 --> 00:12:29.030
Government clause does that.

00:12:29.030 --> 00:12:31.950
It leaves the details to the states,

00:12:31.950 --> 00:12:35.110
but the basic idea is
that there has; the, the,

00:12:35.110 --> 00:12:37.980
the concept of Republican government

00:12:37.980 --> 00:12:42.330
that's embodied in Article
IV is majority rule.

00:12:42.330 --> 00:12:46.410
That even if there were
free and fair elections,

00:12:46.410 --> 00:12:48.270
the state could not choose

00:12:48.270 --> 00:12:51.250
to have military or hereditary government.

00:12:51.250 --> 00:12:53.880
Even if everybody in
California got together

00:12:53.880 --> 00:12:56.380
and said, you know, what
we really need is a,

00:12:56.380 --> 00:13:00.620
a good family that
generation after generation

00:13:00.620 --> 00:13:02.780
will lead us, and they will be

00:13:03.720 --> 00:13:06.470
the, the kings and queens of California,

00:13:06.470 --> 00:13:08.270
and this is what we want

00:13:08.270 --> 00:13:10.710
and so, we're going to
amend our Constitution

00:13:10.710 --> 00:13:14.910
to provide for hereditary
leadership in our state.

00:13:14.910 --> 00:13:16.480
And we're gonna find
somebody great and this

00:13:16.480 --> 00:13:17.370
is what we wanna do.

00:13:17.370 --> 00:13:19.900
Article IV would say,

00:13:19.900 --> 00:13:21.450
we can't choose to do that,

00:13:21.450 --> 00:13:23.680
even through Democratic means.

00:13:23.680 --> 00:13:25.250
- [Kim] As we've learned, Article IV

00:13:25.250 --> 00:13:27.720
requires states to give
Full Faith and Credit

00:13:27.720 --> 00:13:29.920
to the legal proceedings of other states,

00:13:29.920 --> 00:13:32.050
and to treat the citizens of other states

00:13:32.050 --> 00:13:34.310
as well as they treat their own citizens.

00:13:34.310 --> 00:13:37.280
It provides a process for
adding new states into the mix

00:13:37.280 --> 00:13:39.710
and guarantees a Republican
Form of Government

00:13:39.710 --> 00:13:41.660
to the citizens of all the states.

00:13:41.660 --> 00:13:44.760
Article IV binds the
United States together,

00:13:44.760 --> 00:13:47.760
so it's not just a collection
of independent states,

00:13:47.760 --> 00:13:49.660
but rather a unified nation.

00:13:49.660 --> 00:13:51.330
To learn more about Article IV,

00:13:51.330 --> 00:13:53.230
visit the National Constitution Center's

00:13:53.230 --> 00:13:55.800
interactive Constitution
and Khan Academy's

00:13:55.800 --> 00:13:58.253
resources on U.S. government and politics.


Cells - Course Trailer

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.240 --> 00:00:01.370
- Hello.

00:00:01.370 --> 00:00:03.640
Now, when you look at me right now,

00:00:03.640 --> 00:00:08.560
you probably think that it's
me, Sal, talking to you.

00:00:08.560 --> 00:00:11.330
But really what is talking to you

00:00:11.330 --> 00:00:13.760
is a society

00:00:13.760 --> 00:00:16.510
of over 30 trillion cells

00:00:16.510 --> 00:00:19.460
that have somehow
collectively convinced itself

00:00:19.460 --> 00:00:21.060
that it is Sal.

00:00:21.060 --> 00:00:24.220
And what we're going to
study in these lessons

00:00:24.220 --> 00:00:26.370
are exactly that,

00:00:26.370 --> 00:00:29.370
that even though we think
we're one unified organism,

00:00:29.370 --> 00:00:31.210
or frankly, all the
living things we see are,

00:00:31.210 --> 00:00:33.500
we say oh, that's a
plant, and that's a frog,

00:00:33.500 --> 00:00:35.860
and that's a pigeon, and that's a Sal.

00:00:35.860 --> 00:00:37.110
It's not just a Sal.

00:00:37.110 --> 00:00:38.300
It's made up of trillions

00:00:38.300 --> 00:00:40.810
and trillions of things called cells,

00:00:40.810 --> 00:00:42.310
which as we'll learn,

00:00:42.310 --> 00:00:45.380
they're the fundamental
building blocks of life.

00:00:45.380 --> 00:00:47.140
What makes them alive,

00:00:47.140 --> 00:00:50.030
and if we were to go at
a even more basic scale,

00:00:50.030 --> 00:00:52.070
all of a sudden things are not alive.

00:00:52.070 --> 00:00:54.890
It's a fascinating philosophical question.

00:00:54.890 --> 00:00:58.610
And you might think that
one thirty-trillionth of me

00:00:58.610 --> 00:01:01.440
might be some kind of small, simple thing,

00:01:01.440 --> 00:01:03.860
but as we'll see there's a
whole universe in each cell.

00:01:03.860 --> 00:01:06.480
Unimaginable complexity that scientists

00:01:06.480 --> 00:01:09.310
are still trying to understand.

00:01:09.310 --> 00:01:11.870
In these lessons we're gonna talk about

00:01:11.870 --> 00:01:14.560
the history of mankind trying to struggle

00:01:14.560 --> 00:01:16.000
with the basic units of life.

00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:17.340
Is there a basic unit,

00:01:17.340 --> 00:01:20.730
and how do we understand how it works,

00:01:20.730 --> 00:01:22.560
also known as cell theory.

00:01:22.560 --> 00:01:24.760
We're going to learn about
the different types of cells

00:01:24.760 --> 00:01:26.110
that even exist,

00:01:26.110 --> 00:01:29.180
things like prokaryatic
and eukaryotic cells.

00:01:29.180 --> 00:01:30.820
Things like plant and animal cells,

00:01:30.820 --> 00:01:32.400
what's similar, what's different?

00:01:32.400 --> 00:01:34.820
And finally, we're gonna
learn about parts of the cell,

00:01:34.820 --> 00:01:37.050
especially things like, say, the membrane,

00:01:37.050 --> 00:01:39.280
which in and of itself is a fascinating

00:01:39.280 --> 00:01:41.690
and complex piece of machinery.

00:01:41.690 --> 00:01:44.730
So, we're about to delve into
some of the deepest ideas

00:01:44.730 --> 00:01:46.930
that mankind has always faced.

00:01:46.930 --> 00:01:48.430
What is life?

00:01:48.430 --> 00:01:51.570
What makes one thing alive
and another thing not alive?

00:01:51.570 --> 00:01:53.490
What is the most basic unit of life?

00:01:53.490 --> 00:01:54.930
Where did it come from?

00:01:54.930 --> 00:01:57.860
We're gonna touch on all of
those in the next few lessons.

00:01:57.860 --> 00:02:00.620
And I encourage, if you wanna dive deeper

00:02:00.620 --> 00:02:02.060
and get more context,

00:02:02.060 --> 00:02:03.550
and get practice to make sure

00:02:03.550 --> 00:02:05.580
that you're understanding these concepts,

00:02:05.580 --> 00:02:08.573
look at these lessons on khanacademy.org.


Baker v. Carr

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.270 --> 00:00:02.520
- [Kim] Hi this is Kim from Kahn Academy.

00:00:02.520 --> 00:00:05.840
Today we're learning more
about Baker versus Carr,

00:00:05.840 --> 00:00:09.930
a landmark Supreme Court
case decided in 1962.

00:00:09.930 --> 00:00:11.910
Baker versus Carr grappled with an

00:00:11.910 --> 00:00:13.770
incredibly important issue.

00:00:13.770 --> 00:00:17.650
Whether one person's vote is
equal to another person's vote.

00:00:17.650 --> 00:00:20.140
That seems pretty
straightforward to us now,

00:00:20.140 --> 00:00:22.180
but as we'll learn in this video,

00:00:22.180 --> 00:00:25.580
before Baker versus Carr,
it wasn't always the case.

00:00:25.580 --> 00:00:27.930
To learn more, I talked with two experts.

00:00:27.930 --> 00:00:30.570
Theodore Olson, is a
partner at the law firm

00:00:30.570 --> 00:00:32.530
of Gibson, Dunn, and served as

00:00:32.530 --> 00:00:37.363
Solicitor General of the United
States from 2001 to 2004.

00:00:37.363 --> 00:00:39.950
Guy-Uriel Charles, is the
Edward and Ellen Schwarzman

00:00:39.950 --> 00:00:42.210
Professor of Law, and
the founding director

00:00:42.210 --> 00:00:45.740
of the Duke Law Center on
Law, Race, and Politics.

00:00:45.740 --> 00:00:49.000
Mr. Olson, could you kind
of set the stage for us?

00:00:49.000 --> 00:00:52.540
What was the overall historical
and political context

00:00:52.540 --> 00:00:56.280
that led up to the issues
of Baker versus Carr?

00:00:56.280 --> 00:00:59.230
- [Olson] Well, it is a very,
very important decision.

00:00:59.230 --> 00:01:01.910
Earl Warren, who was
Chief Justice at the time

00:01:01.910 --> 00:01:04.267
the case was decided, later said that

00:01:04.267 --> 00:01:06.812
it was one of the most important decisions

00:01:06.812 --> 00:01:10.089
of his tenure as Chief Justice.

00:01:10.089 --> 00:01:13.700
Prior to the decision in Baker versus Carr

00:01:13.700 --> 00:01:15.971
and a couple of subsequent decisions,

00:01:15.971 --> 00:01:19.489
legislatures throughout the country were

00:01:19.489 --> 00:01:24.122
organized in a way based upon geography

00:01:24.122 --> 00:01:29.122
and other considerations
rather than population.

00:01:30.140 --> 00:01:34.280
We take the phrase one person,
one vote for granted now.

00:01:34.280 --> 00:01:38.160
But prior to that time,
rural counties particularly,

00:01:38.160 --> 00:01:41.613
all over the United States
dominated state legislators,

00:01:41.613 --> 00:01:45.520
and individuals in cities, particularly,

00:01:45.520 --> 00:01:50.520
might be electing one representative,

00:01:50.570 --> 00:01:54.388
when a rural county, or a
rural geographical area,

00:01:54.388 --> 00:01:57.760
much smaller in terms of population,

00:01:57.760 --> 00:02:00.460
would also have the same amount of votes.

00:02:00.460 --> 00:02:03.600
So there was a disproportionate weight

00:02:03.600 --> 00:02:06.977
to smaller communities
based upon population,

00:02:06.977 --> 00:02:11.720
which had very significant
political consequences

00:02:11.720 --> 00:02:13.910
with respect to allocation of money

00:02:13.910 --> 00:02:15.840
and resources and the like.

00:02:15.840 --> 00:02:20.840
- [Charles] So in the US,
we draw lines as a way of

00:02:20.967 --> 00:02:23.440
aggregating voters together,

00:02:23.440 --> 00:02:26.130
so that way we can elect people

00:02:26.130 --> 00:02:29.180
to various representative bodies.

00:02:29.180 --> 00:02:32.230
So the process of doing
so, drawing the lines,

00:02:32.230 --> 00:02:34.020
is called, depending on when it's done,

00:02:34.020 --> 00:02:37.170
reapportionment or
redistricting or districting.

00:02:37.170 --> 00:02:40.250
So we draw lines through districts

00:02:40.250 --> 00:02:42.950
for the purposes of representation.

00:02:42.950 --> 00:02:45.599
And that has been the practice in the US

00:02:45.599 --> 00:02:50.464
for basically time immemorial,
the way of districting

00:02:50.464 --> 00:02:53.692
for the purposes of representation.

00:02:53.692 --> 00:02:57.794
Many states, especially
in the late 19th century

00:02:57.794 --> 00:03:02.480
to early 20th century,
refuse, they drew the lines,

00:03:02.480 --> 00:03:04.810
in the case of Tennessee,
they drew the line

00:03:04.810 --> 00:03:07.870
in 1901, that was the last
time they reapportioned,

00:03:07.870 --> 00:03:10.960
where they counted the number
of voters in the state,

00:03:10.960 --> 00:03:14.850
and then they decided how
many voters were going to be

00:03:14.850 --> 00:03:16.780
in each particular district.

00:03:16.780 --> 00:03:18.678
So a lot of time has passed from 1901,

00:03:18.678 --> 00:03:22.150
when the case was decided in 1961.

00:03:22.150 --> 00:03:26.240
And many people moved from the rural areas

00:03:26.240 --> 00:03:29.303
to the urban areas, or
from the rural areas

00:03:29.303 --> 00:03:34.303
to the suburbs, and the
districts were just not equal.

00:03:34.427 --> 00:03:36.380
There weren't the same numbers of voters

00:03:36.380 --> 00:03:38.290
in each particular district.

00:03:38.290 --> 00:03:41.810
- [Kim] So this case took
place originally in Tennessee

00:03:41.810 --> 00:03:44.970
and was brought by a
man named Charles Baker.

00:03:44.970 --> 00:03:48.510
So who was Charles Baker
and why did he object to

00:03:48.510 --> 00:03:51.210
how districting was done in Tennessee?

00:03:51.210 --> 00:03:53.940
- [Olson] Well, he was
among a group of citizens.

00:03:53.940 --> 00:03:57.769
In a way, like many other
Supreme Court cases,

00:03:57.769 --> 00:04:01.047
it's an accident that his name is

00:04:01.047 --> 00:04:03.730
the one by which we remember the case.

00:04:03.730 --> 00:04:06.410
So he came together
along with some lawyers

00:04:06.410 --> 00:04:09.369
and other citizens in this Tennessee area,

00:04:09.369 --> 00:04:12.551
and brought the case, because they listed

00:04:12.551 --> 00:04:17.551
the participants as
plaintiffs alphabetically,

00:04:17.620 --> 00:04:20.530
Mr. Baker was the first one on the list

00:04:20.530 --> 00:04:22.060
and he became the plaintiff.

00:04:22.060 --> 00:04:24.530
There were a group of
citizens in Tennessee,

00:04:24.530 --> 00:04:28.760
he was on the board of a
judicial body in Tennessee,

00:04:28.760 --> 00:04:31.914
but he was among several
citizens who objected

00:04:31.914 --> 00:04:36.130
to the way the state
legislature was apportioned.

00:04:36.130 --> 00:04:38.610
- [Charles] Suppose that
we have a classroom,

00:04:38.610 --> 00:04:40.400
let's say we have an AP History class.

00:04:40.400 --> 00:04:43.230
And we're deciding I wanna
take the class at the dinner.

00:04:43.230 --> 00:04:44.570
We're making two decisions,

00:04:44.570 --> 00:04:46.710
a seafood place or a steak place.

00:04:46.710 --> 00:04:48.820
Let's suppose that we have 10 people

00:04:48.820 --> 00:04:52.410
in the class, and we have three districts.

00:04:52.410 --> 00:04:54.740
So we're gonna decide on the basis

00:04:54.740 --> 00:04:57.080
of the decisions of those three districts.

00:04:57.080 --> 00:05:00.060
Okay, so we've got one
district of two people

00:05:00.060 --> 00:05:03.210
who like seafood, another
district of two others

00:05:03.210 --> 00:05:05.259
who like seafood, and a
district of six people

00:05:05.259 --> 00:05:07.580
who like steak.

00:05:07.580 --> 00:05:08.620
But we're gonna decide

00:05:08.620 --> 00:05:11.050
on the basis of the votes
of each of the districts,

00:05:11.050 --> 00:05:13.760
and then the outcome, the majority

00:05:13.760 --> 00:05:16.290
of the votes of the district
will decide the outcome.

00:05:16.290 --> 00:05:18.960
So remember the first
district had two people

00:05:18.960 --> 00:05:21.180
and both of those people like seafood.

00:05:21.180 --> 00:05:23.550
Our second district also had two people

00:05:23.550 --> 00:05:24.960
and both of those like seafood.

00:05:24.960 --> 00:05:27.130
And our third district had six people

00:05:27.130 --> 00:05:30.600
and those six like steak.

00:05:30.600 --> 00:05:33.560
Now, on the basis of the
decision of the district,

00:05:33.560 --> 00:05:36.050
right, so each district
counts for one vote,

00:05:36.050 --> 00:05:39.320
seafood wins two to one.

00:05:39.320 --> 00:05:41.787
But, if you look at the
total number of people

00:05:41.787 --> 00:05:44.500
and the total preferences,
there are actually

00:05:44.500 --> 00:05:48.890
six people who like steak and
four people who like seafood.

00:05:48.890 --> 00:05:52.640
So really, the decision
should be in favor of steak

00:05:52.640 --> 00:05:55.650
as the majority of the
people, of the voters

00:05:55.650 --> 00:05:58.710
in that classroom preferred
steak over seafood.

00:05:58.710 --> 00:06:01.150
But we can rejigger that outcome by

00:06:01.150 --> 00:06:04.310
just dividing the people into districts

00:06:04.310 --> 00:06:07.560
and dividing them into unequal districts

00:06:07.560 --> 00:06:10.420
and then saying each
district gets one vote.

00:06:10.420 --> 00:06:12.100
Well for all intents and purposes,

00:06:12.100 --> 00:06:14.140
this is exactly what Tennessee had done.

00:06:14.140 --> 00:06:16.610
They basically divided
the state into districts,

00:06:16.610 --> 00:06:18.350
so that way you can elect representatives

00:06:18.350 --> 00:06:21.480
from that district, but
some districts only had,

00:06:21.480 --> 00:06:25.330
let's say, 100 people, and
others had 1000 people,

00:06:25.330 --> 00:06:29.630
and some had 400, some
had, you know, 10,000.

00:06:29.630 --> 00:06:31.540
I'm making up the numbers
here, but just to give you

00:06:31.540 --> 00:06:35.140
an example of what the
disparities were like.

00:06:35.140 --> 00:06:37.870
But each counted essentially as one,

00:06:37.870 --> 00:06:41.730
each district had one vote, even though

00:06:41.730 --> 00:06:44.210
they weren't equal in terms
of the number of people

00:06:44.210 --> 00:06:45.530
that were in the districts.

00:06:45.530 --> 00:06:47.020
When a student comes to me

00:06:47.020 --> 00:06:49.310
and says, well wait a minute,
there are many more people

00:06:49.310 --> 00:06:52.210
here who prefer steak
since it's the majority.

00:06:52.210 --> 00:06:53.850
I'm not going to change the system

00:06:53.850 --> 00:06:56.560
because the system
reflects my preferences.

00:06:56.560 --> 00:06:58.080
And it was the same thing in Tennessee,

00:06:58.080 --> 00:07:01.100
the state legislature did
not have the incentive

00:07:01.100 --> 00:07:03.550
to change the system, because if they did,

00:07:03.550 --> 00:07:04.970
they would loose their seats.

00:07:04.970 --> 00:07:07.030
- [Kim] So in Supreme
Court cases, of course,

00:07:07.030 --> 00:07:09.390
the Supreme Court is
turning to the Constitution

00:07:09.390 --> 00:07:11.140
for its interpretation.

00:07:11.140 --> 00:07:12.470
So what does the Constitution

00:07:12.470 --> 00:07:14.720
say about apportioning representatives?

00:07:14.720 --> 00:07:16.451
Does it make any mention of

00:07:16.451 --> 00:07:18.160
how districts are supposed to be drawn?

00:07:18.160 --> 00:07:20.350
- [Olson] It does not,
it's very interesting

00:07:20.350 --> 00:07:22.983
that our Constitution, as everyone knows,

00:07:22.983 --> 00:07:26.808
gives two senators for each state,

00:07:26.808 --> 00:07:30.355
and then apportions the
House of Representatives

00:07:30.355 --> 00:07:34.621
by district, which is required to be

00:07:34.621 --> 00:07:39.621
redetermined every 10
years, after the Census.

00:07:40.065 --> 00:07:44.690
But prior to Baker versus Carr,
there was very little regard

00:07:44.690 --> 00:07:49.050
to the fact that some
districts were more populous

00:07:49.050 --> 00:07:52.580
than other districts, which
meant that an individual voter

00:07:52.580 --> 00:07:56.693
in a populous district
who had the same amount,

00:07:57.827 --> 00:08:00.750
who had a vote that was diluted,

00:08:00.750 --> 00:08:02.990
in a sense, that he shared that vote,

00:08:02.990 --> 00:08:06.720
or that weight of his vote
with many more persons.

00:08:06.720 --> 00:08:09.960
And this was rampant all
over the United States,

00:08:09.960 --> 00:08:13.023
in California, Los Angeles County,

00:08:14.490 --> 00:08:18.850
which was 40% of the population
of the state of California,

00:08:18.850 --> 00:08:22.640
had one representative
because it was a county

00:08:22.640 --> 00:08:24.520
and it had lots of people in it.

00:08:24.520 --> 00:08:26.580
And then there were three smaller counties

00:08:26.580 --> 00:08:31.251
who had very very few people,
maybe had 10 or 15,000 people

00:08:31.251 --> 00:08:35.210
in the county, and they
each had one vote as well.

00:08:35.210 --> 00:08:37.040
- [Kim] Okay so Charles Baker

00:08:37.040 --> 00:08:40.003
takes this case to the
courts, and then what happens?

00:08:40.003 --> 00:08:42.760
How did this case make its
way through the courts?

00:08:42.760 --> 00:08:45.230
- [Charles] Well the one
thing to think about,

00:08:45.230 --> 00:08:48.830
the reason why Baker versus
Carr is such an important case,

00:08:48.830 --> 00:08:51.920
we have to remember
that the federal courts,

00:08:51.920 --> 00:08:55.170
in particular the United
States Supreme Court,

00:08:55.170 --> 00:08:57.760
had said in a case called
Colegrove versus Green,

00:08:57.760 --> 00:09:01.160
look we the federal
courts are not going to

00:09:01.160 --> 00:09:03.658
involve ourselves in any of these

00:09:03.658 --> 00:09:05.910
redistricting type cases.

00:09:05.910 --> 00:09:07.890
We don't want to have
anything to do with them,

00:09:07.890 --> 00:09:10.340
we don't believe we have
the power to hear them.

00:09:10.340 --> 00:09:12.630
So in 46, the court said,

00:09:12.630 --> 00:09:13.740
we don't think we have the power to

00:09:13.740 --> 00:09:18.300
hear these cases, and
no matter what happens,

00:09:18.300 --> 00:09:21.720
those are cases that belong
to the political process.

00:09:21.720 --> 00:09:25.360
Those are not cases that
belong in the federal court,

00:09:25.360 --> 00:09:27.570
in large part, in important part,

00:09:27.570 --> 00:09:29.320
because we don't think the Constitution

00:09:29.320 --> 00:09:32.635
has anything to say about those cases.

00:09:32.635 --> 00:09:34.190
- [Olson] So when it got
to the Supreme Court,

00:09:34.190 --> 00:09:37.390
again in Baker versus
Carr, the question was,

00:09:37.390 --> 00:09:40.980
whether the court would
reverse that earlier decision

00:09:40.980 --> 00:09:43.678
and decide, this is something that we,

00:09:43.678 --> 00:09:46.650
as a court, can deal with as opposed to

00:09:46.650 --> 00:09:50.210
something that must remain
in the political realm.

00:09:50.210 --> 00:09:55.210
And the case was argued
twice, in April of 1961

00:09:58.070 --> 00:10:02.130
and again in October of 1961,

00:10:02.130 --> 00:10:03.980
the court set it for reargument

00:10:03.980 --> 00:10:06.270
because the first time it was argued,

00:10:06.270 --> 00:10:08.740
one of the Justices was undecided,

00:10:08.740 --> 00:10:11.850
and they were divided four to four,

00:10:11.850 --> 00:10:14.830
and they decided to set
it for reargument again.

00:10:14.830 --> 00:10:17.250
And when the case was then decided

00:10:17.250 --> 00:10:19.600
the second after the second argument,

00:10:19.600 --> 00:10:21.450
the court ruled six to two,

00:10:21.450 --> 00:10:23.980
one of the Justices became disabled

00:10:23.980 --> 00:10:26.398
at the end of the deliberation,

00:10:26.398 --> 00:10:28.010
so it was only eight rather than nine.

00:10:28.010 --> 00:10:30.280
But they decided six to two.

00:10:30.280 --> 00:10:32.298
The relatively narrow question,

00:10:32.298 --> 00:10:36.708
not one person, one vote,
but the narrow question,

00:10:36.708 --> 00:10:39.730
is this something that the Constitution

00:10:39.730 --> 00:10:42.600
gives us permission to decide.

00:10:42.600 --> 00:10:46.566
And reciting the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution,

00:10:46.566 --> 00:10:50.170
which contains the well known due process

00:10:50.170 --> 00:10:52.130
and equal protection clause,

00:10:52.130 --> 00:10:54.890
the court in Baker versus Carr decided

00:10:54.890 --> 00:10:57.680
we can look at the Constitution,

00:10:57.680 --> 00:11:01.310
discern from the equal protection clause,

00:11:01.310 --> 00:11:03.820
that there is a due process clause,

00:11:03.820 --> 00:11:05.900
but mostly the equal protection clause,

00:11:05.900 --> 00:11:09.890
there is a basis for us
to decide that it might

00:11:09.890 --> 00:11:13.870
violate an individual's
Constitutional right

00:11:13.870 --> 00:11:17.160
to equal protection of the
laws, if they're placed

00:11:17.160 --> 00:11:20.170
in a political situation where their vote

00:11:20.170 --> 00:11:22.700
counts less than someone else's vote.

00:11:22.700 --> 00:11:24.700
- [Charles] And so that's the way

00:11:24.700 --> 00:11:26.780
that the court got around that question.

00:11:26.780 --> 00:11:28.850
And the technical legal term

00:11:28.850 --> 00:11:31.600
is to say that these
cases are justiciable,

00:11:31.600 --> 00:11:33.720
which means that courts can hear them,

00:11:33.720 --> 00:11:35.440
that the federal courts have the power

00:11:35.440 --> 00:11:38.240
to decide these types of cases.

00:11:38.240 --> 00:11:41.820
Now the court did not
decide the second question

00:11:41.820 --> 00:11:44.760
in Baker versus Carr,
which is okay, suppose that

00:11:44.760 --> 00:11:46.560
that is true, right, if the court says it,

00:11:46.560 --> 00:11:49.404
so it is now true, that federal courts

00:11:49.404 --> 00:11:52.176
do have the power to make those decisions,

00:11:52.176 --> 00:11:54.830
how do we determine what is the standard

00:11:54.830 --> 00:11:56.690
that we're going to use to determine

00:11:56.690 --> 00:12:00.070
whether the Constitution is violated.

00:12:00.070 --> 00:12:02.490
And that question, the
court could also decide,

00:12:02.490 --> 00:12:04.210
the court said something
to the affect that,

00:12:04.210 --> 00:12:06.527
look, we know that there are standards,

00:12:06.527 --> 00:12:09.370
they are available, what
we're deciding now is that

00:12:09.370 --> 00:12:12.990
we have the power because
the equal protection clause

00:12:12.990 --> 00:12:15.994
in fact means that the
state can't draw lines

00:12:15.994 --> 00:12:18.550
that are so malapportioned

00:12:18.550 --> 00:12:21.620
that they undermine
the equality of voters.

00:12:21.620 --> 00:12:24.680
- [Kim] Baker versus Carr
says that the courts then

00:12:24.680 --> 00:12:27.200
can rule on redistricting.

00:12:27.200 --> 00:12:32.200
Did this bring in a flood of
cases about redistricting?

00:12:33.970 --> 00:12:34.803
- [Charles] It did.

00:12:34.803 --> 00:12:38.560
Once the court decided
that this was fair game,

00:12:38.560 --> 00:12:43.340
that this was appropriate for
courts to consider whether

00:12:43.340 --> 00:12:48.070
or not disparities in
voting power as a result

00:12:48.070 --> 00:12:52.508
of packing people into different
districts in different ways

00:12:52.508 --> 00:12:56.090
constituted a violation
of the Constitution.

00:12:56.090 --> 00:12:59.430
Then, in a relatively short
term by Supreme Court standards

00:12:59.430 --> 00:13:04.430
in 1963 and 1964, and other
decisions that all came about

00:13:05.140 --> 00:13:09.510
before the end of the
60s, the court pronounced

00:13:09.510 --> 00:13:12.660
in case after case, that
one person, one vote

00:13:12.660 --> 00:13:17.660
did indeed was required
by the Constitution.

00:13:17.800 --> 00:13:21.490
So Baker versus Carr opened the door for

00:13:21.490 --> 00:13:24.830
a stream of decisions
from the Supreme Court

00:13:24.830 --> 00:13:28.900
that put into our Constitutional fabric,

00:13:28.900 --> 00:13:31.260
the concept of one person, one vote,

00:13:31.260 --> 00:13:35.780
which changed, probably more
than anything, the structure of

00:13:35.780 --> 00:13:39.722
our political government
in the United States.

00:13:39.722 --> 00:13:41.060
- [Kim] Do you think that
our election system today

00:13:41.060 --> 00:13:43.830
conforms to this standard
of one person, one vote?

00:13:43.830 --> 00:13:44.910
- [Olson] Well we probably haven't

00:13:44.910 --> 00:13:47.780
solved all of the problems,
but compared to where we were

00:13:47.780 --> 00:13:50.750
in 1961, before Baker versus Carr,

00:13:50.750 --> 00:13:52.939
we've really crossed that rubicon.

00:13:52.939 --> 00:13:57.020
Most districts are relatively equal.

00:13:57.020 --> 00:14:00.210
There is a Census every 10 years

00:14:00.210 --> 00:14:03.913
so that we can count the
number of persons in districts.

00:14:04.812 --> 00:14:07.540
There are still cases that come along,

00:14:07.540 --> 00:14:10.656
there are cases involving
the allocation of persons

00:14:10.656 --> 00:14:15.656
by race, and whether
there are systems in place

00:14:16.510 --> 00:14:19.380
that discriminate on the basis of race.

00:14:19.380 --> 00:14:20.730
- [Charles] Some states have passed laws

00:14:20.730 --> 00:14:24.370
requiring voters to present
photo identification

00:14:24.370 --> 00:14:27.410
when the voter goes to
vote at the polling place.

00:14:27.410 --> 00:14:31.840
And one objection to the voter photo ID,

00:14:31.840 --> 00:14:35.221
is that it's a violation of
the equal protection clause.

00:14:35.221 --> 00:14:38.380
It's a violation of the idea of equality,

00:14:38.380 --> 00:14:41.270
that voters are not being treated equally

00:14:41.270 --> 00:14:44.270
vis-a-vis one another, because
some voters have voter IDs

00:14:44.270 --> 00:14:46.198
and others have a hard time getting them

00:14:46.198 --> 00:14:48.210
for whatever reasons.

00:14:48.210 --> 00:14:50.790
And there might be racial
disproportional effects,

00:14:50.790 --> 00:14:52.710
there might be class effects,

00:14:52.710 --> 00:14:54.080
there might be gender effects.

00:14:54.080 --> 00:14:56.560
And so this raises a violation of

00:14:56.560 --> 00:14:59.830
the equal protection clause,
and these are the types of

00:14:59.830 --> 00:15:03.430
arguments that are now
available to someone

00:15:03.430 --> 00:15:07.310
challenging the problem
of inequality in voting

00:15:07.310 --> 00:15:09.900
after Baker versus Carr that
were not available before

00:15:09.900 --> 00:15:11.140
Baker versus Carr.

00:15:11.140 --> 00:15:12.880
And to fully answer your question,

00:15:12.880 --> 00:15:14.753
some people might say,
look we don't fully have

00:15:14.753 --> 00:15:17.535
one person, one vote
because we have a lot of

00:15:17.535 --> 00:15:21.103
laws that treat voters unequally.

00:15:21.945 --> 00:15:25.290
- [Olson] If the
political party A controls

00:15:25.290 --> 00:15:29.996
both houses of a legislator
in a particular state

00:15:29.996 --> 00:15:34.800
and the person who's in
the Governor's Mansion,

00:15:34.800 --> 00:15:38.046
then those lines can be drawn to favor

00:15:38.046 --> 00:15:42.910
that political party so that
you might have situations

00:15:42.910 --> 00:15:47.179
where a political party
maybe only has 40% of the

00:15:47.179 --> 00:15:50.020
registered voters in a particular state,

00:15:50.020 --> 00:15:54.060
but maybe 55% of the
elected representatives.

00:15:54.060 --> 00:15:56.440
That's called political gerrymandering,

00:15:56.440 --> 00:16:00.400
and those issues have
come before the court.

00:16:00.400 --> 00:16:01.790
- [Charles] We still haven't achieved

00:16:01.790 --> 00:16:04.770
the type of equality that was promised

00:16:04.770 --> 00:16:07.780
by the Baker line of cases.

00:16:07.780 --> 00:16:10.410
- [Kim] So we've learned
that in Baker versus Carr,

00:16:10.410 --> 00:16:12.730
the Supreme Court ruled that redistricting

00:16:12.730 --> 00:16:16.300
was a justiciable issue,
or something that the

00:16:16.300 --> 00:16:18.010
federal courts could decide.

00:16:18.010 --> 00:16:20.890
Because ensuring that
votes have equal weight

00:16:20.890 --> 00:16:24.271
is important to ensuring equal
protection under the law.

00:16:24.271 --> 00:16:27.197
The standard of one person, one vote

00:16:27.197 --> 00:16:29.780
opened the flood gate for cases about

00:16:29.780 --> 00:16:32.220
equality of representation
and districting,

00:16:32.220 --> 00:16:35.610
which are still being litigated
at the Supreme Court today.

00:16:35.610 --> 00:16:37.700
To learn more about Baker versus Carr,

00:16:37.700 --> 00:16:39.780
visit the National Constitution Center's

00:16:39.780 --> 00:16:42.940
Interactive Constitution,
and Khan Academy's resources

00:16:42.940 --> 00:16:44.753
on US government and politics.