Shredding a 180bpm unison with Button Masher on his latest collab with Sungazer, “Tallinn Massage Chair 🪑 “

Soviet propaganda in Africa and Asia pointed to a segregated American capital whose residents could not vote for president. Akhil Reed Amar shows how that argument helped produce the amendments of the 1960s. This lecture closes the written Constitution with the modern amendments and reads them through the course's three themes. The Twenty-Third Amendment brought the District of Columbia into the Electoral College at a moment when both parties were competing for Black voters, a competition that also helps explain Alaska and Hawaii statehood and the immigration reform of the same decade. The Twenty-Fourth ended poll taxes in federal elections, and the Court soon extended the principle to state elections. The Twenty-Fifth answered a Cold War problem made vivid by the Kennedy assassination, that a disabled president leaves no one clearly in charge when minutes matter, and in doing so wrote the presidential tag team into the text. The Twenty-Sixth extended the oldest argument in the course, that those asked to fight should be allowed to vote on the war. Amar ends on what he calls the Twenty-Eighth Amendment, the blank space after the Twenty-Seventh, and on the 1963 March on Washington. Chapters: 00:00 The amendments of the 1960s 02:23 Why the District of Columbia mattered 05:08 The Cold War audience 07:13 Alaska, Hawaii, and projecting power 10:22 The Twenty-Fourth Amendment and poll taxes 14:37 The Twenty-Fifth Amendment after Dallas 17:51 Constitutionalizing the presidential tag team 19:59 The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and Vietnam 23:49 The Twenty-Eighth Amendment 25:23 The March on Washington Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain how party competition for Black voters shaped the Twenty-Third Amendment - Describe the Cold War argument for domestic civil and voting rights reform - Identify the gaps in presidential succession that the Twenty-Fifth Amendment closed - Trace the link between military service and suffrage across five amendments - Formulate your own proposal for what a Twenty-Eighth Amendment should do 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Between the Twelfth and Twenty-Second Amendments, about 15 percent of vice presidents won their party's nomination. Since term limits, more than half have. Akhil Reed Amar explains the connection. This lecture covers the amendments that fall between the Progressive Era and the 1960s. Amar first returns to Prohibition, which its supporters saw as of a piece with other reforms, backed by the temperance movement and opposed by a liquor lobby that feared women's suffrage for exactly that reason. He explains its rapid repeal through a process argument: the Eighteenth Amendment came out of malapportioned legislatures that overweighted dry rural counties, while the Twenty-First is the only amendment Congress sent to specially elected state conventions, which were far closer to one person, one vote. The second half traces the two-term tradition from Washington's decision to step down through its unresolved ambiguities, since Grant, Cleveland, and Theodore Roosevelt all tested whether it barred a third term or a third consecutive one, until Franklin Roosevelt's four elections produced the Twenty-Second Amendment. Amar closes on its unintended consequence: a president barred from a third term runs by proxy, through the vice president he chose. Chapters: 00:00 Where the tour has reached 02:14 Prohibition as a Progressive reform 05:53 Why the Eighteenth Amendment fell so quickly 07:55 Malapportionment, and the conventions that undid it 11:31 The Twenty-Second Amendment stands alone 13:07 Washington's precedent, and its ambiguities 16:14 Grant, Cleveland, and the Roosevelts 18:17 The case for and against term limits 20:22 Second-term presidents as lame ducks 22:26 How term limits empowered the vice presidency Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain why Prohibition was understood as a Progressive reform - Compare the ratification processes behind the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments - Trace the two-term tradition from Washington through Franklin Roosevelt - Identify the ambiguities the unwritten two-term custom never resolved - Analyze how presidential term limits reshaped the vice presidency 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Nobody who opposed independence in 1776 held national office again. Opponents of the Constitution in 1788 became presidents, vice presidents, and justices. Akhil Reed Amar explains the difference. Lucas Swineford, executive director of Yale's Office of Online Education and Digital Dissemination, opens this discussion segment with a question about reach: how long did it take for the rest of the world to register what had happened in America. Amar answers that the effect took centuries but the ambition was there from the start, quoting the Declaration's appeal to a candid world, Benjamin West's report of George III's reaction to Washington's plan to disband his army, the opening of Federalist 1, and James Wilson's July 4, 1788 address. He tracks the slow arc through the French Revolution, the failed reforms of 1848, and Lincoln's "last best hope of earth." The second half turns to political forgiveness, using Federalist 2 and its Shakespearean "band of brethren" to argue that shared service in the Revolution made constitutional disagreement survivable, and that the Bill of Rights functioned as a face-saving offer that brought Rhode Island, North Carolina, and men like James Monroe back in. Chapters: 00:00 How the third segment works 01:45 How fast did the news actually travel 03:17 What George III said about Washington 04:54 Federalist 1, and the world's verdict on democracy 07:29 The French Revolution, and the reforms that failed 08:30 Lincoln: the last best hope of earth 10:02 How James Monroe came back 12:36 Federalist 2 and the band of brethren 16:42 Bringing Rhode Island and North Carolina in 19:21 Lessons for today Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Describe how quickly and by what means the American example reached the wider world - Explain why loyalists were permanently excluded but Anti-Federalists were not - Interpret Federalist 1 and 2 as appeals to a watching international audience - Analyze the Bill of Rights as an instrument of political reconciliation - Assess what the ratification settlement suggests about how majorities should treat minorities 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Article I lets Congress fund an army only two years at a time. The Navy carries no such limit. Akhil Reed Amar explains the geostrategic logic behind the asymmetry. This lecture works through the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 and reads them as a coherent design rather than a list. Amar argues for a broad sense of "commerce" that covers foreign affairs, navigation, immigration, and interstate relations, since no other clause plausibly supplies those powers. He treats the Necessary and Proper Clause on two axes: as federalism, where the pointed omission of the word "expressly" grants implied powers while the word "proper" bars pretextual ones, and as separation of powers, where it makes Congress first among equals, setting the number of courts, cabinet offices, and Supreme Court seats. The lecture covers McCulloch v. Maryland and John Marshall's national security case for the Bank of the United States, the militia as a check on federal usurpation and its abuse by the Confederacy, and the pointed silences at the end of Article I, where nothing forbids the states from holding people in slavery. Chapters: 00:00 Why the taxing power comes first 02:16 Borrowing, and how broadly to read "commerce" 07:58 Post offices, copyright, and lower courts 09:03 Declaring war, not merely making it 10:09 Armies, navies, and the two-year rule 12:44 The Necessary and Proper Clause 16:52 McCulloch v. Maryland and the national bank 19:27 Militias as a counterweight, and their abuse 21:32 What neither Congress nor the states may do Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - List the principal enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 - Explain why a narrow reading of "commerce" leaves foreign affairs unaccounted for - Distinguish the federalism and separation of powers work done by "necessary and proper" - Analyze Marshall's reasoning in McCulloch v. Maryland as a national security argument - Identify the omissions in Article I that allowed slavery to entrench and expand 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Article V says no state can lose its equal vote in the Senate without consenting. Akhil Reed Amar argues that clause blocks less than it appears to, and explains the reasoning. This lecture covers the amendment article, which Amar treats as the most fundamental part of the document because it governs how everything else can change. He lays out the four pathways, two for proposing and two for ratifying, and notes that the president plays no role and that the convention route has never been used. Measured against the alternatives the founders knew, it holds up: the Articles of Confederation required all thirteen states and were effectively unamendable, several state constitutions let ordinary legislatures rewrite them or allowed amendment only on fixed dates, and the British constitution was unwritten. Amar also revisits his own younger view that the bar is too high, noting that a high bar screened out far more bad proposals than good ones. The lecture closes on Article V's two provisos, the now-moot protection of the slave trade until 1808 and the guarantee of equal Senate representation, which was added late and, he argues, was not thought through. Chapters: 00:00 Where the tour has reached 03:15 Articles V, VI, and VII: constitutional supremacy 03:49 The four amendment pathways 06:23 Why the amendment rules matter most 07:56 The flaw that doomed the Articles of Confederation 09:31 How state constitutions handled amendment 12:05 Is the bar set too high 14:41 The two provisos in Article V 17:49 A workaround, and why small states stay protected Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - List the four amendment pathways Article V provides - Compare Article V with the amendment rules of the Articles of Confederation and the states - Assess whether the amendment threshold is too demanding - Explain the two provisos limiting Article V and their present status - Analyze whether the Senate apportionment proviso actually blocks reform of the Senate 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor return to the law school they each graduated from in the 1970s, receive its Award of Merit, and talk for ninety minutes about how they actually work. Dean Robert Post opens with an account of each justice's path, and professor Kate Stith leads the conversation. It moves from what drew them to law with no lawyers in their families, through the traits they credit and the ones they regret, to the details outsiders rarely hear. The Court communicates about cases almost entirely on paper rather than by email. There are still spittoons at the bench. Justices sit at lunch in the chair of the justice whose seat they inherited. Sotomayor describes the district court as her formative experience and the perspective she brings because of it, Alito describes the isolation of a regional circuit and the opposite experience of running a U.S. Attorney's office, and Thomas names the EEOC as the job that taught him to stay calm under sustained criticism. All three argue that the Court lacks something in its composition, whether geographic range, criminal defense experience, or practice outside large firms. The session closes with each describing one of the others, and with the advice they gave students that morning. Chapters: 00:00 The Yale Law School Award of Merit 05:02 Introducing Justice Thomas 09:40 Introducing Justice Alito 12:44 Introducing Justice Sotomayor 20:34 What drew each of them to law 28:54 The traits that helped, and hindered 35:14 Baseball, coffee, and a motor coach 46:25 What they are reading 52:45 Law school, in hindsight 1:01:05 The jobs that prepared them 1:13:04 What surprised them at the Court 1:23:33 Why the cases are harder than they look 1:27:14 What the Court's composition is missing 1:36:08 What each says about the others 1:41:22 Advice to students Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Describe how the justices communicate and deliberate internally - Compare district court, circuit court, and prosecutorial experience as preparation for the Court - Explain why a case reaching the Supreme Court is rarely an easy one - Identify the forms of diversity the justices themselves say the Court lacks - Summarize the advice each gives about building a career in law 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Akhil Reed Amar closes the course by separating four distinct things Americans mean by "the Constitution," then leaves students with a challenge about what the next one should look like. The lecture reviews the whole arc: a text organized around popular sovereignty and the three branches, then federalism and supremacy, then amendments appended in chronological order so each generation's work stays visible. Amar distinguishes the terse text itself from unwritten principles of higher law, from the institutional arrangements that actually constitute the government including the two-party duopoly, and from the tools and techniques of interpretation that the document never specifies. He points to further reading, starting with the Federalist Papers, and then poses the challenge. The Constitution was democratic world government for a new world, built on the assumption that oceans kept the old world's threats away, which is why America went 150 years without a large peacetime standing army. Climate change, pandemics, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism cross those moats, and Amar argues the Martians may in fact be coming. He asks the young to draft what he calls Publius II, and closes on public education and thanks to the production crew. Chapters: 00:00 A thank you 02:17 What the course covered 05:24 Four elements of America's Constitution 08:32 The tools and techniques of interpretation 10:36 What to read next 13:12 World government for a new world 15:17 What has changed since 1787 18:01 "Unless the Martians came" 20:08 A call for Publius II 21:42 The image, and thanks to the crew Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Distinguish four senses in which Americans use the word "constitution" - Summarize the organization and the intergenerational structure of the written text - Identify starting points for further reading on constitutional history - Explain the geographic assumptions behind the founders' national security design - Evaluate the case for extending constitutional democracy to global problems 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

The Revolution's slogan was no taxation without representation, not no taxation. Akhil Reed Amar shows how that distinction gave the new Congress a power Parliament had been denied. This lecture moves from the shape of Congress to its powers, opening with an image of Henry Clay addressing an antebellum Senate under a full public gallery. Amar uses it to make two points: Congress is the branch that works in the open, and it is a place built for speech. He reads the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I as a free speech guarantee more absolute than the First Amendment, since no libel suit reaches a senator's words on the floor. He then turns to Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article, and frames it through the question that broke the British Empire: which matters belong to the center, and which to the parts. Parliament claimed all of them and lost the colonies; the Confederation Congress claimed too few and went broke. Section 8 is the attempt to get the balance right, beginning with the power to lay and collect taxes. Chapters: 00:00 Where we are in the text 03:51 Recap: the structure of Congress 07:27 Henry Clay and the public gallery 10:00 Absolute speech and debate 13:05 Broad powers, but enumerated 13:36 The question that broke the British Empire 16:11 The Confederation's opposite failure 18:15 The power to tax, and why it comes first Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain why Congress is the branch most open to public observation - Distinguish the Speech and Debate Clause from First Amendment free speech - Summarize the imperial dispute over what Parliament could and could not regulate - Compare the taxing power of Article I with the requisition system it replaced - Justify why a taxing power required a directly elected House 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

The Supreme Court did not strike down a single act of Congress on First Amendment grounds until 1965. Akhil Reed Amar explains what the Bill of Rights was doing for its first 174 years. This lecture reads the first ten amendments through two themes, localism and populism, and traces them to their source. The Bill of Rights answered Anti-Federalist worries about a distant central government, which is why it opens "Congress shall make no law" and closes with the Tenth Amendment, and why James Madison's proposal to bind the states as well was killed in the Senate. That gap was not filled until the Fourteenth Amendment. Amar shows juries as the connecting thread, appearing in the Fourth through Eighth Amendments as local bodies checking national judges, much as militias check a national army. He explains why Federalists accepted limits on their own creation, as national reconciliation, as a face-saving path for North Carolina and Rhode Island, as a campaign promise Madison had to keep, and as a way to keep control of the amendment agenda. The lecture closes on the Twelfth Amendment, which made party tickets possible while leaving the three-fifths advantage in the Electoral College untouched. Chapters: 00:00 Where the phrase "Bill of Rights" comes from 03:15 The amendment Madison lost 05:50 Why "the people" keeps recurring 07:22 Running through the first ten 11:31 The Fourth Amendment as a jury right 14:06 Why Federalists accepted limits on themselves 17:10 How little the amendments meant on the ground 18:40 The Eleventh Amendment and judicial power 20:14 The Twelfth Amendment and a pro-slavery presidency Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain why the original Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government - Identify the Anti-Federalist concerns the first ten amendments answered - Describe the role juries play across the Fourth through Eighth Amendments - Summarize the political reasons Federalists supported a Bill of Rights - Analyze what the Twelfth Amendment fixed and what it deliberately left in place 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

The usual answers for the Electoral College are that the framers distrusted democracy, or that they were balancing large states against small. Akhil Reed Amar argues the data fit a third explanation: slavery. This lecture reads Article II's eligibility rules as democratic rather than restrictive. There is no property qualification for the presidency and no religious test anywhere in federal office, at a time when most state constitutions had both. Amar shows how pro-immigrant the document otherwise was, with seven foreign-born framers, a third of the early Supreme Court, and four of the first six Treasury secretaries, and argues that the natural-born citizen clause was aimed at foreign aristocrats buying an election, not at immigrants. The age-35 rule gets the same treatment: an anti-dynastic guard against another William Pitt the Younger, prime minister at 24 on his father's name. He then turns to the Electoral College, showing that large states win it almost every time and that the Three-Fifths Clause was built into it, which is why Virginia outvoted a more populous Pennsylvania. The lecture closes by reading the 1796 Washington family portrait, where the general's uniform, the globe, the enslaved Billy Lee, and the absent heir each carry part of Article II. Chapters: 00:00 A presidency stronger than any governorship 02:19 No property qualification, no religious test 03:53 The natural-born citizen rule 05:24 How pro-immigrant the document was 06:56 What the clause was actually guarding against 07:57 Why 35, and who William Pitt the Younger was 10:32 Washington, Jefferson, and the missing heir 15:16 The Electoral College and the Three-Fifths Clause 19:22 Reading the Washington family portrait Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Identify the qualifications Article II imposes and the ones it pointedly omits - Explain the natural-born citizen clause as an anti-aristocratic rather than anti-immigrant rule - Justify the age-35 requirement on egalitarian grounds - Assess the claim that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery accommodation - Interpret the 1796 Washington family portrait as a summary of the founding presidency 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

The Articles of Confederation let a state turn paupers and vagabonds away at its border. The Constitution dropped that language, and Akhil Reed Amar explains what the change made possible. This lecture opens Article IV and the horizontal side of federalism: not the states against the central government, but the states with each other. Amar begins with Benjamin Franklin's 1754 "Join or Die," generally reckoned the first American political cartoon, and with the structural fact behind it. The colonies were spokes running to a common crown with almost no rim connecting them, much as Kenya, India, and Canada shared a monarch in 1930 without sharing much else. Franklin's Albany Plan failed, but its provisions resurfaced in the Articles of Confederation and then in Article IV. The lecture works through interstate privileges and immunities, which bar a state from treating visiting Americans as aliens, and turns to the question the text left unanswered: who counts as a citizen. Amar argues Article IV contains no race test, that South Carolina asked for the word "white" and was voted down, and that free Black men had voted on the Constitution itself in Massachusetts and New York, before Roger Taney held otherwise in Dred Scott. Chapters: 00:00 Where the tour has reached 04:48 Vertical and horizontal federalism 09:27 Franklin's "Join or Die" 12:00 Colonies tied to the crown, not to each other 14:36 The Albany Plan of 1754 17:09 Privileges and immunities across state lines 19:11 The paupers and vagabonds exception, dropped 20:12 Who counts as a citizen 22:15 Taney's answer in Dred Scott Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Distinguish vertical federalism from horizontal federalism - Describe the legal relationship among the colonies before independence - Explain what interstate privileges and immunities require of a host state - Identify what Article IV changed from the Articles of Confederation and why it matters - Evaluate the textual and historical case against Taney's citizenship holding 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Akhil Reed Amar opens the second edition of Yale's online constitutional law course and explains the one change students asked for: the original single course is now two. Amar taught the first version in partnership with Yale and Coursera as one long sequence covering both of his books, America's Constitution: A Biography and America's Unwritten Constitution. The lectures are unchanged here, but the sequence is now split into a standalone course on the written Constitution and a separate one on the unwritten Constitution, each with its own certificate. He also flags a wrinkle worth knowing before you start: because the lectures were recorded as one course, you will occasionally hear him refer to the first half and the second half. Chapters: 00:00 A relaunch of the course 00:43 What stayed the same 01:13 One long course becomes two 02:16 What the next lecture covers Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Describe how the written and unwritten Constitution courses relate to each other - Identify which topics belong to this course and which belong to the sequel - Interpret references to "the first half" and "the second half" in later lectures 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Lincoln campaigned on a gradual plan: no slavery in the territories, and abolition in perhaps a century. Akhil Reed Amar explains that plan, and why nothing like it happened. This lecture closes the founding era and sets up the Civil War amendments. Amar first derives much of the original Constitution from a single premise, national security, tracing how the need for a government that could tax, raise armies, and bind states through treaties produced bicameralism, a separate executive and judiciary, popular ratification over the heads of state governments, and eventually a Bill of Rights. He then turns to what that system failed to do. Congress could bar slavery from the territories but was never required to, and the North won the race for western settlement partly by luck: Indian defeats in Ohio, European immigrants avoiding competition with slave labor, and Southern fear of importing enslaved people after the Haitian revolution. From Jefferson through Jackson to Taney and Dred Scott, the system tilted further toward slavery, until Lincoln won on a deliberately modest platform of no new slavery and gradual, compensated abolition on the pattern the northern states had used. Chapters: 00:00 Closing the founding era 01:45 National security as the starting premise 07:27 Going over the heads of the state governments 09:28 The Sedition Act and the election of 1800 11:30 Why the founders' system eventually failed 12:32 Luck, and the race for western land 14:36 Jackson, Taney, and Dred Scott 16:08 Lincoln's platform: no new slavery 19:45 How gradual emancipation had worked in the North Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Derive the main structural features of the Constitution from the national security premise - Explain why the framers appealed directly to the people rather than to state governments - Identify the contingencies that kept slavery from spreading across the territories - Summarize Lincoln's actual anti-slavery platform in 1860 - Describe how gradual emancipation statutes worked in the northern states 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

New York Times v. Sullivan, Miranda, Griswold, Lawrence. None of them is strictly a Bill of Rights case. Akhil Reed Amar explains why they are all Fourteenth Amendment cases instead. This lecture argues that the constitutional world most Americans actually inhabit was built by amenders rather than founders. The original Bill of Rights bound only Congress, was barely enforced before the Civil War, and reached the states only through the Fourteenth Amendment, accomplishing what Madison had failed to get through the First Congress. The word "equal" applied to persons rather than states arrives with the Fourteenth as well. Amar then turns to the Progressive Era cluster and makes a specific claim: the Sixteenth Amendment supplied a national redistributive taxing power, the Seventeenth freed senators from state legislatures and made them willing to back national projects, and the Nineteenth doubled an electorate that has since leaned toward social welfare legislation. Together, he argues, those three amendments make the New Deal, the Great Society, and the Affordable Care Act constitutional matters rather than departures from the founding. Chapters: 00:00 What we owe to the amendments 01:46 Incorporation against the states 03:18 The amendment Madison could not pass 06:57 Where "equal" enters the Constitution 09:00 Washington, Jackson, and Lincoln 11:36 Why amendments arrive in generational clusters 13:06 From "Congress shall make no law" to "Congress shall have power" 14:41 Why so much more of life is now interstate 17:17 Sixteen plus seventeen plus nineteen Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain incorporation and why it changed what the Bill of Rights means in practice - Identify which landmark rights cases rest on the Fourteenth Amendment - Describe the pattern by which amendments arrive in generational clusters - Contrast the localism of the early amendments with the nationalism of the later ones - Analyze how the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments expanded federal capacity 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

At the Revolution, the chief judges of ten of the thirteen colonies sided with George III rather than George Washington. Akhil Reed Amar argues that fact shapes all of Article III. This lecture explains why the judiciary gets one chapter where Congress and the presidency each got two: because the written Constitution says less about it, and because judges share Article III with juries. Amar reads the three articles as a record of the Revolution. Congress must be representative because the fight was over taxation without representation. The presidency borrows the monarchy's strengths without its heredity. And the courts come last because judges were the Crown's men while juries, assemblies, and militias were the patriots'. He then lays out the democratic pyramid running through the document, in which more accountable bodies choose less accountable ones: presidents pick judges, judges do not pick their chief, and Congress sets the size of the Court and the rules it follows. The lecture closes on Federalist 78, life tenure, and the open question of how robust a judicial review the framers actually had in mind. Chapters: 00:00 Why judges and juries share one chapter 02:45 The Revolution behind Articles I and II 06:18 Colonial judges sided with the King 08:23 How state constitutions treated their courts 11:07 The natural order of the three articles 13:11 The democratic pyramid 16:15 The least dangerous branch 17:16 Judicial review, expected but undefined 19:54 Life tenure and undiminishable salary Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain why Article III is the shortest of the three branch articles - Describe the role of judges, juries, and militias during the Revolution - Trace the democratic pyramid from the Preamble through Article III - Identify the powers Congress holds over the structure of the federal courts - Summarize Hamilton's case in Federalist 78 for judicial independence 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Lincoln took office with under 40 percent of the popular vote and no majority in either house. Akhil Reed Amar argues the South could have simply outwaited him, and explains what firing on Fort Sumter cost it instead. This lecture rejects the comfortable story that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments fulfilled the founders' design. Amar argues the opposite: the system grew more pro-slavery decade by decade, with a South that criminalized anti-slavery preaching, sent Preston Brooks back to Congress a hero, and pushed for expansion into Kansas, Cuba, and Mexico. He walks through Lincoln's shift from restoring the Union to emancipation, driven by two calculations, keeping Britain from recognizing the Confederacy and moving roughly 180,000 Black soldiers from one side of the ledger to the other. He then follows the arithmetic that made the Fourteenth Amendment necessary, since emancipation turned every three-fifths count into five-fifths and would have returned the South with more power than before. The lecture covers birthright citizenship overturning Dred Scott, privileges or immunities as a second Bill of Rights against the states, why voting was deliberately left out, how Section 2 and readmission terms produced the Fifteenth Amendment, and the "Shall I Trust These Men?" cartoon that closes the chapter. Chapters: 00:00 The story we would like to tell, and why it is false 02:22 How the South shut down its own debate 06:58 The strategy that could have beaten Lincoln 09:01 Fort Sumter, and a catastrophic miscalculation 13:14 Why Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation 16:53 The Thirteenth Amendment: immediate and uncompensated 20:33 The arithmetic problem that freedom created 22:06 The Fourteenth Amendment, sentence by sentence 28:19 How the Fifteenth Amendment became possible 31:24 "Shall I trust these men?" Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Refute the claim that the Reconstruction Amendments fulfilled the founders' intentions - Explain the diplomatic and military reasoning behind the Emancipation Proclamation - Describe what made the Thirteenth Amendment radical by the standards of its time - Trace how ending the three-fifths discount created the need for the Fourteenth Amendment - Distinguish civil rights from political rights in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

No federal body reviews old statutes to check whether they are still constitutional. Course teaching assistant Bradley explains what that means for laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Sherman Act. This short bonus session answers two questions submitted by students. The first asks whether any entity routinely reviews federal laws for continuing constitutionality. The answer is no: a statute stays on the books until Congress repeals it or a court strikes it down, and age alone does not make a law unconstitutional. Bradley notes that the reach of a statute can shift as conditions change, most obviously with the expansion of interstate commerce, and that the body already empowered to clear out obsolete laws is Congress itself. The second question asks why the founders thought of America as an island protected by oceans when Canada and Mexico sat on its borders. The answer turns on what those places were in 1788: thinly held outposts of European empires rather than powers with armies of their own. Chapters: 00:00 Do old federal laws stay valid? 01:43 What changes when conditions change 02:20 Canada, Mexico, and the island mentality Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain why federal statutes remain in force absent repeal or judicial invalidation - Identify how shifts in interstate commerce alter a statute's practical reach - Describe the strategic position of Canada and Mexico at the time of ratification 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Only men could vote on whether women should vote. Akhil Reed Amar traces the fifty-year path from that problem to the Nineteenth Amendment, starting in the territory with the fewest women. This lecture covers the Progressive Era amendments in detail. On the income tax, Amar argues the power always existed, that Lincoln signed a progressive income tax during the Civil War and courts upheld it, and that the Court's later reversal rested on a reading of "direct tax" bound up with slavery-era compromises. The Sixteenth Amendment is one of only a few times Americans have overturned the Supreme Court by amendment. He then traces how the Seventeenth Amendment was preceded by improvised direct elections, from the Lincoln-Douglas contest of 1858 through southern primaries and the Oregon pledge system, and follows its downstream effects on one-person-one-vote, on cabinet service, and on the path from the Senate to the presidency. The Nineteenth Amendment gets the fullest treatment: why western territories with five men to every woman moved first, how state-by-state votes shifted from 70-30 losses to a bandwagon no ambitious politician wanted to be left off, and why Woodrow Wilson reversed himself and asked Congress for suffrage as a war measure. Chapters: 00:00 The income tax, and whether it was ever barred 02:50 The Court reverses itself, and Harlan dissents 05:57 The four times an amendment overruled the Court 07:00 The Seventeenth Amendment 10:06 The Oregon plan 11:40 Downstream effects on the cabinet and the presidency 15:44 The Nineteenth Amendment 17:15 Why the West enfranchised women first 20:55 The bandwagon, state by state 23:01 Wilson, the war, and the League of Nations Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain why Amar considers the federal income tax constitutional before 1913 - Identify the Supreme Court decisions that Americans overturned by amendment - Describe the workarounds that produced direct Senate elections before the Seventeenth Amendment - Trace the effects of direct Senate election on cabinets, courts, and presidential politics - Analyze the federalism and wartime dynamics that produced the Nineteenth Amendment 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

There were never many fugitive slaves. Akhil Reed Amar explains why the clause that actually broke the Union was the one giving Congress power over the western territories. This lecture separates slavery into the distinct constitutional questions it actually comprised: the citizenship of free Black Americans, the three-fifths count in the House and the Electoral College, the international slave trade and the 1808 date, fugitives, slavery in the states, and slavery in the territories. Amar reads interstate privileges and immunities as a rule of equal treatment rather than portable rights, which is where Taney's reasoning in Dred Scott goes wrong, and covers full faith and credit for out-of-state judgments and the gap between civil and political rights that left women citizens without the vote. He treats the Fugitive Slave Clause as a partial compromise that Congress and the Taney Court then implemented in far more pro-slavery ways, culminating in the 1850 act. The territories are the heart of the lecture: Article IV gave Congress the choice, the first Congress chose free soil in the Northwest Ordinance, and Taney declared that choice unconstitutional. The lecture ends on the Republican Guarantee Clause, the sleeping giant that would become the most important provision in the document after the Civil War. Chapters: 00:00 What Taney claimed in Dred Scott 02:13 Privileges and immunities as equal treatment 05:19 Full faith and credit for state judgments 07:53 Slavery as six or seven separate questions 10:26 The Fugitive Slave Clause 15:30 Slavery in the territories 19:41 The Northwest Ordinance and equal footing 21:43 The Republican Guarantee Clause 24:19 Back to "Join or Die" Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain why privileges and immunities grant equal treatment rather than portable rights - Distinguish the civil rights of citizens from political rights such as voting - Break down slavery in the Constitution into its separate clauses and questions - Contrast Article IV's grant of power over the territories with Taney's reading of it - Describe how the Republican Guarantee Clause became the basis for Reconstruction 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Marbury v. Madison and the Louisiana Purchase both happened in 1803. Akhil Reed Amar argues the purchase was by far the more consequential constitutional decision, and explains why. This lecture marks the turn from the original Constitution to its amendments. Amar notes a structural fact with real consequences: unlike most state constitutions, which absorb amendments into the text, the federal document appends them in chronological order, so each generation's contribution stays legible. He uses that to frame the Constitution as an intergenerational project rather than a founders' achievement, and traces the sequence: a colonial revolution organized around stated principles that did not end in a bloodbath or a strongman, state constitutions as the first laboratory, a continental ratification, the acquisition of Louisiana, the anti-colonial commitment to admit territories as equal states, and the ending of slavery. He closes on the twentieth century, arguing that an America still committed to racial hierarchy could not have stood against Nazism as it did, and on how much of the promise was only redeemed much later. Chapters: 00:00 The end of the original Constitution 02:13 Why amendments are appended, not woven in 04:48 What the American project gave the world 06:51 A revolution that did not devour itself 09:26 State constitutions as the first round 12:03 Louisiana, and the real decision of 1803 13:37 Turning territories into equal states 14:42 The project of ending slavery 17:13 The twentieth century, and the present Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain how the placement of amendments shapes our reading of the Constitution - Describe why the American Revolution avoided the outcomes of later revolutions - Trace which features of the federal Constitution came from state experiments - Compare the constitutional significance of Marbury v. Madison and the Louisiana Purchase - Assess the Constitution as an unfinished intergenerational project 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Akhil Reed Amar closes the course on the written Constitution and asks one favor of students who will not continue: watch a single lecture from the sequel, which doubles as a conclusion to this one. Having walked the text from the Preamble through Article VII and all twenty-seven amendments, Amar previews what the second course adds: a set of tools and techniques for going beneath, beyond, and behind the words while staying faithful to them. For anyone stopping here, he points to the sequel's final lecture, posted as a bonus, which sums up both halves. Chapters: 00:00 The end of the semester 01:17 A favor: the bonus lecture 02:20 What the sequel course covers Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Describe what the written Constitution course has covered end to end - Explain what the unwritten Constitution course adds to it - Identify which additional lecture serves as a conclusion to both courses 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

In 1787, ten of the thirteen states gave their governor a one-year term. The Constitution proposed four years with unlimited reelection, for a far more powerful office. Akhil Reed Amar explains the reasoning. This lecture opens Article II by contrasting the new presidency with the presiding officer it borrowed its name from. Under the Articles of Confederation, the "president" held a gavel and little else: no veto, no pardon, no appointments, no command of an army, no fixed term. Amar argues the familiar label was kept partly to ease the transition and partly because everyone in Philadelphia had spent the summer calling George Washington "Mr. President." He then works through the numbers. One president, singular where Congress and the courts are plural, and continuously in office because the United States is always in session while Congress and the Court are not. Four years, defended on two grounds: a domestic balance against a Congress with two-year and six-year terms, and the standing to negotiate with hereditary monarchs abroad. The term was perpetually renewable, and the two-term limit we now take for granted began as Washington's personal choice to leave. Chapters: 00:00 Article II, and the word "president" 02:47 Why keep the old label 05:21 An office designed with Washington in mind 08:00 One person, always in session 10:36 Four years, measured against the states 13:12 Counterbalancing a stronger Congress 16:54 The foreign affairs argument 17:55 The states begin copying the model 19:58 Washington's decision to step down Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Compare the constitutional presidency with the presiding officer under the Articles of Confederation - Explain why a single, continuously serving executive suited a country facing sudden crises - Contrast the four-year term with the terms of contemporary state governorships - Analyze the domestic and foreign affairs cases for a longer executive term - Distinguish what the text provided from what Washington's example established 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Roughly 10,000 cases petition the Supreme Court each year and about 75 are heard. Teaching assistants Nick Crown and Bradley Silverman walk through that process and then argue two live cases. The first half of this bonus session explains how constitutional law actually gets made: certiorari and discretionary review, why the courts of appeals are the last stop for nearly every litigant, and how majority, plurality, concurring, and dissenting opinions carry different precedential weight. Harlan's lone dissent in Plessy becoming the reasoning of Brown v. Board of Education serves as the example. The second half takes up two cases then pending. Holt v. Hobbs asks whether an Arkansas grooming policy can bar a Muslim prisoner from growing a half-inch beard, which leads through Employment Division v. Smith, RFRA, RLUIPA, and the Hobby Lobby decision, and to the harder question of whether such statutes themselves favor religion. Elonis v. United States asks whether a threat posted on Facebook in the form of rap lyrics requires proof that the writer meant it as a threat, or only that a reasonable reader would take it as one. Along the way they connect the statute's interstate commerce hook back to Amar's lectures. Chapters: 00:00 How a case reaches the Supreme Court 03:17 Concurrences, dissents, and pluralities 05:23 When a dissent becomes the majority 08:57 Holt v. Hobbs, and a half-inch beard 11:34 Employment Division v. Smith, RFRA, and RLUIPA 15:43 The search for a limiting principle 22:59 Is a blanket ban the least restrictive means 24:31 Elonis v. United States 25:31 The interstate hook, and bratty children 29:37 Intent, or the reasonable listener 38:17 Chilling speech, and rap lyrics 43:34 Predictions Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Describe the path of a case from petition for certiorari through published opinion - Distinguish majority, plurality, concurring, and dissenting opinions by precedential weight - Apply the three-part test that RFRA and RLUIPA impose on laws burdening religious exercise - Explain the interstate commerce hook and why Congress attaches it to criminal statutes - Weigh the intent standard against the reasonable listener standard for true threats 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Article II gave the president powers no English king held, including one Lincoln used to suspend habeas corpus. Akhil Reed Amar explains the textual basis and the two checks that made it tolerable. This lecture measures the presidency against the two offices the framers knew: a state governorship it far outstripped, and a monarchy it deliberately fell short of. Amar starts with the veto, which makes the president effectively a third chamber, and the salary guarantee that Congress can neither raise nor cut, then turns to the Vesting Clause. Article I grants powers "herein granted"; Article II does not, which is the textual root of a residual executive power covering removal of cabinet officers, secret treaty negotiation, repelling invasion, and Lincoln's suspension of the writ before Congress could reconvene. Each of those, Amar notes, was ratified after the fact by Congress or the Senate, from the Louisiana Purchase onward. He then covers command of the army but not the state militias, the pardon power and its national security logic, and impeachment as the peaceful alternative to beheading a Charles I. The lecture closes on the "King Andrew the First" cartoon and what Jackson's presidency reveals about a Constitution that was democratic, pro-slavery, and built for national security at once. Chapters: 00:00 The veto as a third chamber 01:43 Salary independence from Congress 05:57 The Vesting Clause and residual power 08:00 Lincoln, habeas corpus, and Fort Sumter 12:10 Commander in chief, and the militia check 13:16 Why the pardon power is unilateral 16:53 Elections and impeachment as the real checks 19:25 Who presides at an impeachment trial 20:56 King Andrew the First Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain how the veto and a fixed salary secure presidential independence - Distinguish the Article II Vesting Clause from the Article I grant of enumerated powers - Trace how unilateral executive acts were later ratified by Congress or the Senate - Compare presidential powers with those of a state governor and an English monarch - Interpret the "King Andrew the First" cartoon as a claim about the antebellum presidency 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Before the Civil War, the Supreme Court struck down one federal statute. Presidents vetoed roughly two dozen bills on constitutional grounds. Akhil Reed Amar reads the presidential oath to explain why. This lecture works outward from what Article II says about the person who holds the office. Amar covers the original vice presidency, filled by whoever finished second rather than by a running mate, and reads it as evidence that executive power is continuous: a vice president steps in the instant a president dies, where a vacant House seat waits for an election. He revisits James Madison's objection to the succession statute, which put legislative leaders in line even though the Constitution names "officers" and the Incompatibility Clause bars a member of Congress from holding executive office. The heart of the lecture is the oath, one of the few passages the framers wrote out word for word: no religious test, an option to affirm rather than swear, and a promise to defend the Constitution rather than every statute Congress passes, which is where the constitutional veto comes from. Chapters: 00:00 The numbers behind Article II 03:48 Three-fifths inside the Electoral College 05:22 The original vice presidency 06:54 Why executive power never sleeps 08:31 Succession, and Madison's objection 12:37 The presidential oath, word for word 13:39 No religious test, and the option to affirm 15:46 Defending the Constitution, not every statute 18:49 Constitutional vetoes before the Civil War Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain how the vice presidency worked before the Twelfth Amendment - Summarize Madison's case against putting legislative leaders in the line of succession - Identify what the presidential oath omits compared with the English coronation oath - Contrast a president's duty to the Constitution with a British monarch's duty to Parliament - Compare early presidential vetoes with early judicial review as constitutional enforcement 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Justice Sonia Sotomayor got a C on her first college paper and spent a summer working through grammar books from first grade to twelfth. She tells that story and many others in this conversation at Yale's Woolsey Hall. Yale Law School professor Judith Resnik leads the discussion, opening with the first opinion Sotomayor wrote for the Court, in a case Resnik argued, and with its quiet significance: the phrase "undocumented immigrant" entering the United States Reports, later cited by the Supreme Court of California. The conversation then follows the arc of Sotomayor's memoir, My Beloved World. She describes an admissions interview at Radcliffe that she fled, a recruiting visit to Yale that felt too radical for a Catholic girl from the Bronx, and choosing Princeton because a friend from her high school met her at the bus station. She talks about the professor who circled every adjective in her paper and told her to stop thinking in Spanish, about competing against herself rather than her classmates, about leaning over to ask Justice Stevens what a colleague was really arguing, and about what affirmative action gave her, which she describes as the chance to know a race was being run at all. The session closes on how the book was written, into a Dictaphone across three summers. Chapters: 00:00 Welcome and introductions 08:14 Returning to a very different New Haven 11:54 How she came to apply to the Ivy League 13:58 The interview she fled 16:31 Choosing between Princeton and Yale 21:12 Finding a community, and venturing out of it 31:37 Learning to write, one paper at a time 39:32 On admitting what you do not know 42:04 Joining a conversation already in progress 44:39 What affirmative action opened 50:22 Writing My Beloved World Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Describe the path Sotomayor took from the Bronx to the Supreme Court - Explain her distinction between ignorance and stupidity as a learning strategy - Summarize her account of how elite admissions worked before the civil rights era - Identify what she means by competing against yourself rather than your peers - Interpret a justice's first opinion as a site of deliberate word choice 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

A 1788 printing of the Constitution sets the Preamble in type nearly twice the size of the articles. Teaching assistant Lauren Bezaki and rare book librarian Mike Widener show why that detail matters. This bonus tour visits the Yale Law School rare book collection to look at primary sources behind the course. The first is a first edition of the debates of the Massachusetts ratifying convention, published in 1788 from newspaper reports, which Widener reads as evidence that publishers expected a wide readership beyond Massachusetts and wanted to influence states that had not yet voted. Its closing pages carry the vote tally with John Hancock's name set in type, and statements from delegates who voted no pledging to support the Constitution anyway. The tour then turns to an early Connecticut printing of the Constitution bound with the state's session laws, where the oversized Preamble echoes what Amar argues in the lectures, and ends at a first edition of the Federalist: published anonymously, still in its original pasteboard covers with untrimmed pages, and donated by a descendant of a veteran of Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Chapters: 00:00 A tour of the collection 01:45 The Massachusetts ratifying convention debates 05:23 The vote tally, and John Hancock's name in type 06:26 What the delegates who voted no wrote 07:26 An early printing of the Constitution 08:28 The Preamble in oversized type 09:34 A first edition of the Federalist 11:41 Untrimmed pages, and the copy's original owner Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Describe how newspaper publishing shaped the record of the ratification debates - Interpret typography in early printings as evidence about the Preamble's importance - Explain what the dissenting delegates' closing statements reveal about the process - Identify the publication history of the Federalist and its original anonymity - Locate comparable primary sources in a local or university library 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

The Supreme Court invalidated exactly one act of Congress before 1850, and it concerned the Court's own jurisdiction. Akhil Reed Amar explains how judicial review grew from that into what it is today. This lecture separates the principle of judicial review from its scale. Amar derives the principle in two steps, since the Constitution outranks statutes in democratic pedigree and judges are bound to follow law, and notes that the same logic gives the House, the Senate, and the president their own constitutional vetoes. He then assembles the evidence that the founders expected something modest: an unspecified Court size, an original bench of six, no requirement that opinions be written or collective, and a Marshall Court that struck down state laws constantly while touching one federal statute. He accounts for the modern expansion through more judges, certiorari and docket control, rights-creating amendments after the Civil War, and divided government. The lecture returns to juries as Article III's lower house, whose thin protection helped precipitate the Bill of Rights, and closes on John Marshall, the diplomat and politician who made the Court real, and on his successor Roger Taney, whose pro-slavery vision led to Dred Scott. Chapters: 00:00 What judicial review is, and who else exercises it 03:48 The two-step argument for the practice 05:50 How modest a version the founders imagined 08:24 An unspecified size, and a malapportioned Court 09:56 Six justices, and no required written opinions 11:59 What Marbury v. Madison actually struck down 15:32 Why the judiciary grew so much more powerful 21:17 Juries as the lower house of Article III 24:20 John Marshall, and the succession to Taney Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain judicial review from the supremacy of the Constitution and the duty of judges - Distinguish judicial review from the executive and legislative equivalents - Assess the textual evidence that the founders envisioned a modest judicial role - Identify the developments that expanded judicial power after the founding - Describe how thin jury protections in Article III helped generate the Bill of Rights 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Why should a document from 1787 outrank a law passed this year by elected representatives? Akhil Reed Amar answers that the Constitution is higher law because it has the deeper democratic foundation. This lecture finishes the original Constitution with Articles VI and VII. Amar contrasts the Supremacy Clause with the Articles of Confederation, which never called themselves law and which state courts treated as a treaty that later statutes could override. He then builds the hierarchy of legal authority as a democratic gradient: the Constitution and its amendments, which required two-thirds of each house and three-quarters of the states, then federal statutes, then treaties, then state constitutions and statutes. On that reading, treaties sit below statutes rather than beside them, which is why raising an army, creating a federal crime, or repealing a statute all require the House. He reads the Supremacy Clause as the answer to secession, then turns to Article VII, the last sentence of the original document and the mirror of the Preamble, which cashed out "We the People" as specially elected ratifying conventions and set nine states as the threshold for a union no one had to join but no one could later leave. Chapters: 00:00 What remains: Articles VI and VII 02:16 What the Articles of Confederation never claimed 04:47 Why the Constitution is the supreme law 06:52 The hierarchy: Constitution, statutes, treaties 10:59 What a treaty cannot do on its own 13:34 The Supremacy Clause and secession 15:09 Article VII and the ratifying conventions 19:47 Why nine states, and not thirteen 22:18 From rear portico to passageway Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Explain the Supremacy Clause and what it changed from the Articles of Confederation - Justify constitutional supremacy on democratic rather than merely formal grounds - Rank constitutional provisions, statutes, treaties, and state law by authority - Identify actions that require the House of Representatives and cannot be done by treaty - Describe why ratification used specially elected conventions rather than referenda 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Ryan and Saagar discuss civilian planes being effected by military interference in New Mexico. LIMITED TIME FREE TRIAL AT BreakingPoints.com Sign up for a PREMIUM Breaking Points subscriptions for full early access to uncut shows and LIVE AMAs with the hosts every week: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/ Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/033kFeszOZEgO3Wy6ziXKR Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/breakingpoints.yt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Breaking-Points/61575893472315/ #news #politics #youtube

The Constitution is about 8,000 words, start to finish. Akhil Reed Amar explains how to read all of it, in textual order, and what to look for in the one sentence that opens it. This introductory lecture lays out the plan for the course: the Preamble, then Articles I through VII, then the amendments in the order they were added, from the Bill of Rights through Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, and the modern amendments of the 1960s and after. Amar names the three themes he will track throughout: how democratic the document was in its own historical context, how pro-slavery it also was and how close that contradiction came to destroying it, and how much of it was driven by national security and geostrategy. He introduces the companion book, America's Constitution: A Biography, discusses the course image drawn from the National Constitution Center, and closes with the assignment: read the text, and reread the Preamble. Chapters: 00:00 What this course is and who it is for 02:18 Working through the text in order 04:18 From Reconstruction to the modern amendments 06:21 Eight thousand words, and what they leave out 07:26 The unwritten Constitution, previewed 10:31 The companion books 14:11 Democracy, slavery, and national security 17:12 The course image and the Preamble 20:45 Your assignment Learning objectives: After watching, you'll be able to: - Summarize the structure of the written Constitution in textual order - Identify the three themes Amar tracks: democracy, slavery, and national security - Distinguish the written Constitution from the unwritten principles built on it - Explain why the Preamble carries weight out of proportion to its length - Formulate your own answer to whether the document created an indissoluble union 📺 Watch the full playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCq6-l8oFuvk 🎓 Enroll on Coursera for assessments and a certificate: https://www.coursera.org/learn/written-constitution 🌐 Explore more learning opportunities on Yale Online: https://online.yale.edu/courses/americas-written-constitution

Dierenasiel DOA heeft te veel konijnen onder haar dak. Nadat ze een tijdje geleden een aantal moesten redden, bleken sommigen drachtig. Inmiddels zijn er al drie nestjes met babykonijntjes. "Heel schattig, maar ze moeten echt een huis krijgen, en dat kan lang duren." Soms kan timing perfect zijn. Vandaag was zo'n dag. Een van de drachtige konijnen begon precies tijdens de afspraak met AT5 te bevallen. Een mooi, maar ook spannend moment, vertelt dierenverzorger Noor van Gennep.  Ze is druk in de weer met het konijn, genaamd Brioche (de namen zijn verdeeld tussen twee thema's: brood en snoep), dat al zes baby's heeft gebaard als we binnenlopen en nog niet klaar lijkt te zijn. Brioche werd gedumpt langs de weg en gered door DOA. Normaal castreren of steriliseren ze konijnen zo snel mogelijk, maar de drachtige Brioche stond al op springen.  Het is al het derde nestje in korte tijd en de hoeveelheid konijnen in het asiel is inmiddels uniek te noemen. "We hebben ze echt in alle kleuren en leeftijden. We zitten vol", zegt Van Gennep. En dat heeft ook een keerpunt. "Het is onwijs schattig om te zien, maar we vinden het niet fijn. Voor al die konijnen zoeken we ook weer een huis en dat kan best even duren." En dus doet ze een dringende oproep: "Iedereen die ooit heeft nagedacht over konijnen adopteren, dit is je teken. Kom vooral langs om te kijken en met ons in gesprek te gaan of het bij je past." De konijnen kunnen alleen per twee of meer geadopteerd worden, anders worden ze eenzaam. Wie thuis al konijnen heeft, kan wel een in plaats van twee adopteren. Op de website vind je een overzicht van alle konijnen en de voorwaarden.  Van Gennep hoopt dat de konijnen snel geadopteerd worden, maar het afscheid zal wel pijn doen. "Ik hou van ze." ❌ ❌ ❌ AT5 - Echt Amsterdams Nieuws Abonneer hier op ons youtubekanaal: https://www.youtube.com/AT5 Tips of opmerkingen? Whatsapp: 06 511 909 38 Telefoon: 020 555 1155 Volg AT5: www.at5.nl Instagram: instagram.com/at5.nl Facebook: facebook.com/at5nl Twitter: twitter.com/at5

As violence in the occupied West Bank continues to escalate, one of the most influential figures in Israel's settler movement joins the programme. The interview follows a diplomatic clash between Israel and Spain after Israeli officials criticised Madrid over a surge of migrants crossing from Morocco into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta. Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, accused Spain of hypocrisy, saying it should explain why it still maintains "colonial enclaves" in Africa before criticising Israel. The exchange reignited debate over competing claims of colonialism. Israel and the United States recognise Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara, a territory whose status remains disputed internationally, while Israel itself faces sustained international criticism over the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Against that backdrop, attention has increasingly focused on the settlement movement and its growing influence within Israeli politics. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has repeatedly voiced support for expanding settlements and has also called for Israelis to resettle Gaza. In tonight’s Uncensored, Piers Morgan is joined by founder of the Nachala settler movement, Daniella Weiss, Palestinian Christian pastor Munther Isaac, author and political scientist, Norman Finkelstein, historian and professor Benny Morris, to discuss. 00:00 Introduction 02:10 Daniella Weiss joins Piers to discuss the on-going settler violence against Palestinians 03:03 Is a Jewish life is worth the same as a Palestinian life 10:00 Amnesty International says Israel created a campaign of ethnic cleansing Palestinians 19:36 Palestinian Christian Pastor Munther Isaac reacts to Daniella Weiss’ interview 21:21 The crimes of Israel 23:34 Munther Isaac’s comments during his interview with Tucker Carlson 26:46 Piers asks Munther Isaac if he condemns what happened on October the 7th 27:42 Norman Finkelstein and Benny Morris debate settler colonialism in the West Bank 38:00 Piers asks Norman about Ghazi Hamad’s comments about Hamas crimes 44:43 What do Norman Finkelstein and Benny Morris agree upon? 46:14 Did Hamas weaponise sexual violence? 51:43 Will Hamas accept the proposed deal to demilitarise? Subscribe to stay up-to-date on all Uncensored content. Follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on: X: https://x.com/PiersUncensored Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/piersmorganuncensored/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@piersmorganuncensored Follow Piers Morgan on: X: https://x.com/piersmorgan Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/piersmorgan #piersmorgan #piersmorganinterview #piersmorgandebate

Ryan and Saagar discuss LIMITED TIME FREE TRIAL AT BreakingPoints.com Sign up for a PREMIUM Breaking Points subscriptions for full early access to uncut shows and LIVE AMAs with the hosts every week: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/ Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/033kFeszOZEgO3Wy6ziXKR Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/breakingpoints.yt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Breaking-Points/61575893472315/ #news #politics #youtube

Everyone is collateral. The boundaries between colleague, lover and enemy blur in the backstabbing, high pressure, glamorous world of high finance. ⁣ #Industry #CharlieHeaton #KiernanShipka ⁣#Throwback Subscribe and 🔔 to the BBC 👉 https://bit.ly/BBCYouTubeSub Watch the BBC first on iPlayer 👉 https://bbc.in/iPlayer-Home

Ryan and Saagar discuss Jon Stewart humiliating Fetterman on Israel. LIMITED TIME FREE TRIAL AT BreakingPoints.com Sign up for a PREMIUM Breaking Points subscriptions for full early access to uncut shows and LIVE AMAs with the hosts every week: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/ Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/033kFeszOZEgO3Wy6ziXKR Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/breakingpoints.yt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Breaking-Points/61575893472315/ #news #politics #youtube

Betty heeft opnieuw geschiedenis geschreven. Voor de tweede keer verbeterde ze het wereldrecord als oudste vleugelloopster ter wereld. Tegelijkertijd haalde ze met haar prestatie geld op voor een ziekenhuis.

Charan Ranganath discusses how and why we remember. Does this match with your personal experience of memory? With a free trial, you can watch the full talk NOW at https://iai.tv/video/memory-is-a-construction?utm_source=YouTube&utm_medium=description Our understanding of memory often focuses on its failures: the names we cannot recall, the reasons we walked into a room, the experiences that seem to vanish within hours. But what if forgetting is not a flaw, and memory is far more powerful and purposeful than we realise? Join Charan Ranganath, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at UC Davis and author of Why We Remember, to explore the cutting-edge neuroscience behind how memory truly works. Drawing on discoveries from his own laboratory, Ranganath examines how the brain forms, stores and retrieves memories, and reveals why memory is not simply a record of the past but the dynamic thread connecting past, present and future. #memory #neuroscience #psychology Charan Ranganath is Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and Director of Dynamic Memory Lab at the University of California, Davis, where he spent more than 25 years investigating how the brain encodes, stores and retrieves memories. He is the author of Why We Remember: The Science of Memory and How It Shapes Us. The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! https://iai.tv/subscribe?utm_source=YouTube&utm_medium=description&utm_campaign=https://iai.tv/video/memory-is-a-construction 0:00 Intro 0:25 Memory is not so much about the past, but instead about the present and the future. 2:35 Event boundaries - how our mind divides up events 9:35 How event boundaries affect us in real life 16:20 How sleep and memory interact 17:31 How curiosity improves memory For debates and talks: https://iai.tv For articles: https://iai.tv/articles For courses: https://iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

Ryan and Saagar discuss Trump lashing out at Abdul El Sayed after his win in Michigan. LIMITED TIME FREE TRIAL AT BreakingPoints.com Sign up for a PREMIUM Breaking Points subscriptions for full early access to uncut shows and LIVE AMAs with the hosts every week: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/ Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/033kFeszOZEgO3Wy6ziXKR Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/breakingpoints.yt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Breaking-Points/61575893472315/ #news #politics #youtube

Ryan and Saagar discuss Trump freaking at Hegseth over a lack of options in the Iran war due to munitions shortages. LIMITED TIME FREE TRIAL AT BreakingPoints.com Sign up for a PREMIUM Breaking Points subscriptions for full early access to uncut shows and LIVE AMAs with the hosts every week: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/ Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/033kFeszOZEgO3Wy6ziXKR Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/breakingpoints.yt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Breaking-Points/61575893472315/ #news #politics #youtube

Her owner Steve Drottar told 5 Live Drive what they had to do to get the win…🌊 - BBC 5live #Dog #Labrador #Surfing Subscribe and 🔔 to the BBC 👉 https://bit.ly/BBCYouTubeSub Watch the BBC first on iPlayer 👉 https://bbc.in/iPlayer-Home

Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCddem5RlB3bQe99wyY49g0g/join Join us on Patreon. Visit https://www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Visit our website www.PeriscopeFilm.com Dating to summer of 1942, "A View of the Soviet World" presents an interview with American novelist and reporter Erskine Caldwell. he briefly tells of the civilian defense work he witnessed during a trip to Moscow. The film shows hows the Russians are carrying out their pledge of "All for Victory!" including efforts in huge metallurgical plants, the oil industry, the rapid harvest, nurses drilling, and Red Cross work. Caldwell was an American novelist and short story writer. His writings about poverty, racism and social problems in his native Southern United States, in novels such as Tobacco Road and God's Little Acre, won him critical acclaim. In 1941, Caldwell reported from the USSR for Life magazine, CBS radio and the newspaper PM. 00:00 Opens with music setting a somber tone before transitioning into a firsthand account of the bombing of Moscow 0:42 Caldwell vividly describes the night skies lit by anti-aircraft fire—an eerie, almost theatrical display of pyrotechnics aimed at German planes. The sounds of shrapnel and falling bombs create a tense atmosphere. Among the chaos, brave citizens known as roof watchers work tirelessly to extinguish incendiary bombs dropped by the Germans, often from dangerous rooftop positions. Their efforts are portrayed as the most crucial work taking place in the city during this time. As the bombing continues, the resilience of Moscow’s population becomes evident 2:16: Rather than breaking their spirit, the attacks have strengthened their determination to resist the invaders. The entire population appears mobilized, with people performing various defense-related tasks, from filling sandbags to engaging in construction—anything to contribute to the war effort. This communal dedication reflects an unwavering commitment to achieving victory. Attention then shifts to the broader military front 3:36: The Red Army is said to have upended Hitler’s expectations. The Blitzkrieg aimed at the Soviet Union has failed, transforming into a long and bloody conflict. This is followed by a critical mention of Nazi propaganda 5:27: questioning how Goebbels might spin the narrative to hide the extensive losses suffered by the German military in terms of planes, tanks, and entire divisions shattered by Soviet forces. The video emphasizes the total war effort by the Soviet people 6:35:No sacrifice is too great; citizens are fully committed to victory. Industry plays a central role, with metallurgists increasing steel and iron output to supply tanks, planes, and artillery. Simultaneously, oil production continues around the clock. 7:13: New drilling regions ensure that fuel supplies remain abundant, guaranteeing the military will never face shortages. Agricultural productivity is also highlighted. 8:34: From the steppes of the Don to the fields of Kazakhstan, Soviet citizens harvest food and materials to support the army. Bread, oil, and metal are provided in abundance to sustain both military and civilian needs. This unity and productivity reflect the people's complete dedication to defending their homeland. The theme of personal sacrifice deepens with the mention of mass blood donations 9:02: Hundreds of thousands of citizens give blood for wounded soldiers, exemplifying the selflessness pervading the country. Soviet women and girls also step up 10:20: training as Red Cross workers and serving bravely at the front lines, often under fire. Their heroism has saved countless lives. The film closes with a reaffirmation that all citizens of the Soviet Union—men and women, young and old—are united in a selfless struggle for victory over fascism 11:42: A note of patriotic resolve. The End. Motion picture films don't last forever; many have already been lost or destroyed. For almost two decades, we've worked to collect, scan and preserve the world as it was captured on 35mm, 16mm and 8mm movies -- including home movies, industrial films, and other non-fiction. If you have endangered films you'd like to have scanned, or wish to donate celluloid to Periscope Film so that we can share them with the world, we'd love to hear from you. Contact us via the weblink below. This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD, 2k and 4k. For more information visit http://www.PeriscopeFilm.com

Recht in de zon kijken tijdens een eclips? Geen goed idee. #vrtnws #nws #zonsverduistering #eclips Meer van onze video's zien? Abonneer je hier: https://www.youtube.com/vrtnws Jullie hebben allemaal het recht om jullie mening te geven, maar heb respect voor elkaar. Reacties waarin je scheldt of iemand persoonlijk aanvalt, worden verwijderd.

Wie is Count Binface en waarom staat hij op dit moment in het middelpunt van de Britse politiek? Tegen Nieuwsuur vertelt de uitdager van de onlangs afgetreden parlementariër Nigel Farage wat zijn deelname aan serieuze verkiezingen te betekenen heeft. "Waarom ik het opneem tegen Nigel Farage? Waarom niet?" #Nieuwsuur #nigelfarage #vk #countbinface #politiek Meer video’s? Abonneer, zet je belletje aan en laat een reactie achter. Volg ons ook op: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nieuwsuur/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@nieuwsuur Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Nieuwsuur en onze site: https://www.nieuwsuur.nl Wil je dagelijks op de hoogte worden gebracht van onze verhalen? Abonneer je dan op ons WhatsApp-kanaal. Bij Nieuwsuur vind je regelmatig een nieuwe video. We geven verdieping en context. We controleren de macht. Respectvol en kritisch. Bij Nieuwsuur zie je indringende verhalen die je raken en aan het denken zetten.

Geen van de in het rood geklede Shelbourne fans die we vandaag treffen in het centrum durft te zeggen dat Shelbourne vanavond gaat winnen. Maar het mag de pret niet drukken. Mogen voetballen in de Johan Cruijff Arena is al boven alle verwachtingen van de fans. "Spelen tegen een club als Ajax, is een droom die uitkomt." Zo'n zeshonderd fans zitten vanavond in het uitvak van de Johan Cruijff Arena. Het vak zal dus nog niet voor de helft gevuld zijn, maar zo gek is dat niet. Shelbourne FC is een kleine club uit Dublin. En dat gevoel nemen de fans vandaag ook mee het centrum in. De sfeer is goed, maar optimisme over de wedstrijd is ver te zoeken. "Ik ben bang dat we totaal ingemaakt worden. Waarom? Heb je Shelbourne wel eens zien spelen?" Ajax speelt vanavond om acht uur de thuiswedstrijd van de derde kwalificatieronde van de Conference League. Het is het debuut van Ajax in deze competitie.  ❌ ❌ ❌ AT5 - Echt Amsterdams Nieuws Abonneer hier op ons youtubekanaal: https://www.youtube.com/AT5 Tips of opmerkingen? Whatsapp: 06 511 909 38 Telefoon: 020 555 1155 Volg AT5: www.at5.nl Instagram: instagram.com/at5.nl Facebook: facebook.com/at5nl Twitter: twitter.com/at5

The F/G suspended chord combined with earlier options creates radio-ready progressions that never get old. One sentence Full video: https://bit.ly/3ZZmA0i #MusicTheory #ChordProgressions #PopFormulas #SuspendedChords #SoundDesign #MusicProduction

Geen van de in het rood geklede Shelbourne fans die we vandaag treffen in het centrum durft te zeggen dat Shelbourne vanavond gaat winnen. Maar dat mag de pret niet drukken. "Spelen tegen een club als Ajax in de Johan Cruijff Arena, is een droom die uitkomt." ❌ ❌ ❌ AT5 - Echt Amsterdams Nieuws Abonneer hier op ons youtubekanaal: https://www.youtube.com/AT5 Tips of opmerkingen? Whatsapp: 06 511 909 38 Telefoon: 020 555 1155 Volg AT5: www.at5.nl Instagram: instagram.com/at5.nl Facebook: facebook.com/at5nl Twitter: twitter.com/at5

There’s no fooling an Ann Droid 🤖 @carolinenwigg #AnnDroid #DianeMorgan #Comedy #Funny Sue’s (Sue Johnston) husband passed away 18 months ago and her only son, Michael (Paul Ready), is moving out to try and fix his marriage. But the good news is he’s leaving Sue in the care of Linda (Diane Morgan) a social humanoid robot, created to keep elderly people company and monitor their health.