Prageru
Prageru
@prageru·3.5M subscribers·6.6K videos

Why We're Losing Liberty | Wisdom of the Masters

Posted

September 7, 2015

Views

1,249,536

Likes

20,881

Comments

1,999

Engagement

1.83%

Search the Record

Indexed

Every word spoken in this episode is indexed. Type any phrase to jump straight to the moment it was said.

Type any word or phrase that may have been spoken. Click a result to seek the player to that exact moment.

Try a name, a topic, or a quoted line

YouTube Description

as posted by the channel

Was the Constitution written in a way that was designed to protect freedom and limit the government's size? Has it been effective in doing that? And what's the Supreme Court's record when it comes to protecting our rights? Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, answers these questions and more.

Donate today to PragerU!

Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released.

Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.

Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager!

Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone!

Do you shop on Amazon? Click and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.

VISIT PragerU!

FOLLOW us!

PragerU is on Snapchat!

JOIN PragerFORCE!

For Students

JOIN our Educators Network!

Script:

How did the framers of the Constitution of the United States seek to preserve liberty and prevent tyranny? Pretty basic question. Here's the answer I usually get from my students.

"Well, Professor, to protect the individual and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, they added the Bill of Rights; and they gave the power to enforce those rights to the Supreme Court."

Are my students correct? The editorial boards of the New York Times or the Washington Post and many members of the U.S. Congress would say yes. Unfortunately, the answer is wrong. I say "unfortunately" because it reflects a common misunderstanding of the Constitution. And that misunderstanding has led to a serious erosion of our freedom.

Let me explain. Both the Bill of Rights and judicial review -- the idea that the courts can decide if a law is Constitutional or not -- were hotly debated items when the Constitution was being drafted in 1789. The Federalists, the group led by Alexander Hamilton that wanted a national constitution, opposed including a Bill of Rights. They feared it would actually undermine what the Federalists regarded as the main protections against tyranny in the document -- the limited nature of the national government itself.

The Constitution did not envision a national government of general jurisdiction -- meaning a government that could do whatever it wanted -- but rather, a government of enumerated and delegated powers -- a government that had authority over only specific areas of American life. All other powers were to be beyond the scope of the national government and reserved to the States or to the American people themselves. That's why, when political necessity forced the Federalists to yield to demands for a Bill of Rights, they took care to add two important amendments -- the ninth and tenth:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

These amendments reinforced the idea that the national government couldn't just assume powers it had not been specifically granted by the Constitution. Unfortunately, these amendments have not stymied the expansion of the national authority. The power grab the Federalists feared -- the national government taking more and more control over more and more areas of American life -- took place. Not immediately, but over time, and especially beginning in the second half of the 20th century.

That same time frame has seen a similar concentration of power in the judiciary, especially in the Supreme Court -- so that now, most Americans think of the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of almost every social and political dispute. The Founders never envisioned the court in this role.

For the complete script, visit

Guests & Subjects Covered

Supreme Court'sRobert George ProfessorPrinceton UniversityPragerU Joining PragerUDownload PragerpediaAndroid ThousandsAndroid Join Prager UnitedDennis Prager Join PragerU's

Sentinel Indexing in Progress

Metadata and chapters are available. Claim extraction for this episode is pending.

All video content is delivered via YouTube embedded players in accordance with the YouTube Terms of Service. Sentinel provides research tools that promote discovery and accountability across political media.