Skip to main content

tv   Lectures in History First Second Amendment Court Cases  CSPAN  January 3, 2021 12:01pm-1:01pm EST

12:01 pm
next on lectures in , history, img academy instructor teaches a class about the first and second amendments to the u.s. constitution, using court cases to demonstrate how these rights have been interpretative. located in braiding can, florida, img academy focuses on student athletes. he teaches at the school of part of img academy's partnership with the university of south florida to offer certain students courses with college credit. >> this afternoon we will look at the 10 amendments to the constitution, which are called collectively, the bill of rights. it's the third part of the constitution. gentlemen, the bill of rights is unquestionably the shining beacon in a world of darkness. because it really says to the world, as it has over the last 200 years, that america is an exceptional country. that america is a country that provides. and considers the rights of its
12:02 pm
citizens, the rights of its inhabitants before anything. and so what we are going to look at this afternoon will be -- hopefully i will cover all 10 of the amendments. that as you see when we get into them, you will find the amendments are incredibly easy to read. the words, even though they were written over 200 years ago, the words make sense, but the problem, gentlemen, is in the interpretation of those words. what do those words mean? and here, we work a long time at the beginning of this course, looking at liberal and conservative philosophies, and how you look at these amendments is determined to a great deal by your philosophical and political perspective. do you look at these amendments through liberal eyes, you see them one way.
12:03 pm
you look at them through conservative eyes, you see them another way. gentlemen, it's very relevant today, because a lot of the issues we will look at this afternoon, in the bill of rights, are literally tearing this country, to some degree, apart. divide people, divide friends, divide families over some of these issues that we are going to look at in the bill of rights. so before i begin with the first amendment, what i would like to do is just give you a real quick overview of the constitution. very, very quick, very brief. the constitution has three parts to it. first of all, what is this simple definition of a constitution? quick and easy. it's simply a plan of
12:04 pm
government. it sets out the rules by which the federal government will operate. if you are all in sports, the constitution, gentlemen, is, they are the rules of the game, they are how you play the game. and the constitution has three essential parts. the first is the preamble. how many of you had to memorize the preamble in middle school or high school? what is the preamble? not what does it say, but what is it? yes, sir? jeremy, take it a little bit more than that. it is the introduction. what does it contain in that introduction?
12:05 pm
look at it, give me a couple of the main point in the preamble. establish justice. so what it's telling you, domestic tranquility, establish justice. what else? provide for the common welfare. provide for the common defense. it's basically the preamble contains the vision. the vision of the framers for what kind of a country they wanted to see america b. a country where there is justice for everybody. a country, depending on your political perspective, that provides for the common welfare. does that mean everybody has a right to a certain minimal standard of living? when you look at those words, as i said to you earlier, they are
12:06 pm
easy to read, but they are complicated to interpret. what does it mean provide for the common defense? that may be the easiest one. keep america safe from external enemies. but what about internal enemies? does it also apply there. free your notes, put the preamble contains the vision, the philosophy and the vision of the framers for what kind of a country they wanted america to be. the second part, the articles. the articles. the articles layout, in detail, how the government, the federal
12:07 pm
government will be set up, and how it will run. so the articles establish how the federal government will be set up and how it will run. it establishes the powers of each branch of government, and the limitations of each branch of government. if i'm going to fast, tell me. i want to make sure you've got it clear in your notes. the constitution establishes the qualifications to hold office. the qualifications, for congressman, for senators, for the president. it establishes how long that term of office should be to
12:08 pm
congressman, for senators. i guess you could call those term limits. so, it establishes the powers, the duties and the limitations. article one covers congress, the house and the senate. how old you have to be to congressman and a senator, how long do you serve in office, and what are your primary duties? article two, the president. how old do you have to be to be president? you have to be born in the united states. and it's interesting because article one is longer, article two is shorter than article one, and article three establishes the judicial branch, the court. article three sets up the courts. and article three-ish or than
12:09 pm
article two, article to a shorter than article one. what does that mean? when i look at it it means the primary responsibility lies with congress. congress makes the laws. put that in your notes, that is important. congress makes the walls. -- the laws. the president carries out the laws passed by congress. the president, gentlemen, does not make law, the president carries out the law made by congress. and the courts, the function of the courts. the main responsibility of the courts is to make sure that no law passed by congress -- put
12:10 pm
this carefully in your notes -- no law passed by congress and carried out by the president violates the constitution. no law passed by congress, carried out by the president, violates the constitution. that, gentlemen, is a simplified overview of the constitution of the united states. the functions. the third part of the constitution, preamble, articles, the third part, the bill of rights. the bill of rights. and the subject of our lecture this afternoon. gentlemen, as i go through these rights, if you have questions
12:11 pm
and comments about them, stop me and ask them. i don't want you to wait until the end of the class, because we may run out of time, but by the time we are done and you have forgotten the question you will ask. any of these, interrupt me whenever you want, and let's address your question. ok? the bill of rights. the bill of rights, gentlemen, were added on to the constitution, that's why they are called amendments. and they were added on in 1791. they are over 220 years old, and they are still very, put in your notes, relevant today. very relevant today. yes, sir? give me that again. 1791.
12:12 pm
1791. constitution, 1789, three years later, two years later you had the bill of rights. now, what are the bill of rights? the bill of rights, gentlemen, are, your rights as an american, the protections that you have against government intrusion. the bill of rights, the protections of americans, in fact, it's actually wider than that. anybody within the borders of the united states is protected by the bill of rights. so your protection against government abuse. the bill of rights does not protect you from your neighbor.
12:13 pm
it does not protect one citizen from another. it only protects you from the government. it limits what the government can do vis-a-vis your freedoms, your rights. and of course, the architect of the bill of rights was tom jefferson. jefferson said, we need, on the constitution, amended to the constitution, a clear list of what the rights of the common people are. now, hamilton, on the other hand, said, you don't need it. you don't need it. so the dispute between hamilton and jefferson resulted in a compromise, and a compromise was, we will have a list of 10 rights that every person in this country has. safeguards.
12:14 pm
so let's take a look at those rights. let's take a look first at amendment number one. amendment number one. called the four freedoms. the four freedoms. and the four freedoms are, freedom of religion freedom of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly. religion, speech, press, and assembly. now let's look at each one of those.
12:15 pm
and gentlemen, we could spend, believe me, if we start looking at all the cases throughout history that have come out of the first amendment, we could spend the entire first semester on the first amendment alone, looking at all the cases and how they have affected american society, and how over the years, 220 years, our perspective changed. and yet, the first amendment is still relevant today. let's look at the first one. freedom of religion. freedom of religion does not mean that you are free to do anything you want in the name of religion. it does not mean that. it means the government cannot make you go to church, to put it simply. the government, congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion, whether it's catholicism, judaism or islam,
12:16 pm
and then say to you, every sunday you've got to go to church. you might take it for granted. why is it such a big deal? there are societies in the world where you pray five times a day, and if you don't, you will get your head cut off. i know from my own experience, when i was your age, i lived in greece with my father, i have dual citizenship, both american and great. in 1968, there was a coup, the military took control in greece and i was in athens living with my dad. and the government that came to power was a government of military men, kernels. and they looked at greek society and they said, greek society, we have taken control because greek society is getting out of control.
12:17 pm
and the way to bring back the old values, they said, every male and female under the age of 26 must go to church on sunday. and if you're not in church on sunday, you are going to be arrested. so i can remember sunday mornings going to church with my father and there would be tanks in the streets of athens, there would be armed soldiers. and if you gave them krapp about going to church, it would pull out a 45 and kneecap you. do you know what a kneecap is? a kneecap with a 45 means what? it means you are crippled for the rest of your life. and then the colonel said, the other problem with greek society is you've got to many young guys wearing beards.
12:18 pm
so it became against the law to have a beard. you could go to prison for wearing a beard. you had to be clean shaven. gentlemen, we take freedom of religion as a given. but in many states, it is not. in many areas of the world, it isn't. there is a national religion or there is a religion in place, and you will adhere to it. some middle eastern countries operate under religious law. do you know what i'm talking about? sharia. sharia. freedom of religion. what else does freedom of religion mean? it means congress cannot pass a law making you go to church, and it also means that congress cannot pass a law preventing you from worshiping the religion in
12:19 pm
the church of your choice. now, what does that mean? does that mean in the name of religion you can do anything you want? freedom of religion, like the others, like speech and press and assembly are not absolute. put that in your notes. these freedoms are not absolute. they are limited. and one of the first tests of freedom of religion came in the american west in the late 1800s. familiar with the mormon church. the mormon church back at you talk, the mormon church back then believed in polygamy. that every mormon man could have more than one wife.
12:20 pm
but american law for bade polygamy -- for bade polygamy. so the mormon challenged the freedom of religion and the courts ruled no. you can practice your religion, but your religion cannot violate reasonable criminal laws. look at today. if you look at today, in parts of new york and new jersey, there are muslim communities who say we really should come under sharia law. there are jewish orthodox communities who say we should come up --, under the law of the tell mode -- talmude. what two types of law? positive law and divine law. how could they come into conflict? what in your notes, freedom of religion gives you the right to
12:21 pm
worship. so long as the way you worship does not violate criminal laws. i will give you another example. there was a religious group out of miami. i forget the name of the group. you don't need to make notes on this. 20, 30 years ago. they said, during our religious services -- i think they were eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. because then we go into a state and we are better able to communicate with god. and of course, some of their practitioners were arrested and convicted under eu legal drug use laws. and they appealed it and said -- illegal drug use clause. and they appealed it and said freedom of religion. you cannot do things that
12:22 pm
violate the local norms. >> how can the government experiment? there are declassified documents of the government experimenting with psychedelic mushrooms. prof. prevas: say that again. take your mask down for a second. >> how can they not do that? prof. prevas: who is they? >> the people of miami. the people of the government can experiment with psychedelic mushrooms? prof. prevas: the local laws outlaw the use of this. remember this mushroom and you are using it as part of your religious ceremony. you cannot do it, you are violating law. >> but the government is using it to experiment.
12:23 pm
prof. prevas: let me ask you another question. >> so i can't use it but government officials can? prof. prevas: there was another case where a religious group was having their ceremonies. and their ceremonies included sex with little kids. they said it's part of our religious experience. and the authorities arrested them, charged them and said, no, you cannot argue that you are using this as some type of religious experience. you cannot hide under the first amendment. as long as your religious practices come within the norms of society, don't violate its criminal laws, you are free to do what you want. but once they do, then you can't. you are clear on that? the main message, the main take
12:24 pm
away from freedom of religion is that it is not absolute. congress cannot make you worship, congress cannot prevent you. you cannot pass a law that makes you go to church, they can't pass a law that prevents you from going to church. as long as your religious practices stay within the compounds of society. imagine if you took that limitation off. if you said you could do anything you want, so long as in the name of religion. so long you say it's a part of my religious experience, i can do it. suppose you said human sacrifice is a part of our religious experience. who sacrificed his son on the altar in the old testament? >> god. prof. prevas: yes, sir. so can we have sacrifice as part of our religious experience?
12:25 pm
again, are you clear on that, the limitations? >> i know there is a crowd gathering of orthodox jews and know that there are state violations under social distancing rules. prof. prevas: new york has a problem. what is he going to do. the orthodox, the hasidic jewish communities in brooklyn and queens are saying, we are going to meet together, we are going to have our ritual prayers and god will take care of us. and mayor deblasio's saying -- he has a problem, what will you do? he will go out on the streets. could you imagine the police arresting orthodox jews on the streets of new york? nazi germany, at the same time you cannot spread the virus.
12:26 pm
you got a public health crisis on your hands. so what do you do? it's a quandary. and what will happen, i predict, is there will be jewish leaders who probably will be arrested. and as a result, they will appeal and it will go through the courts and it will probably go to the supreme court. let's move on. any more questions on religion, or do we want to move on? let's take a look at freedom of speech. freedom of speech, gentlemen, is not an absolute right. you cannot say whatever you want to say, no matter what. there are limitations. and there is a very famous case,
12:27 pm
shank versus the united states. this goes back to world war i. they were a socialist. world war i broke out and the united states got involved in world war i in 1917. and the army needed guys to join. so they started a campaign to have guys sign up. before they started drafting them they tried to see if they could get enough young men to join the army. he is against the war. he goes down to a recruiting station and he stands outside, where these guys are lined up to go in, and he says, don't go, don't sign up. all you are going to wind up doing is dying for nothing. don't do it. the police arrest him.
12:28 pm
he makes the argument, he's convicted, he appealed, his case goes all the way to the supreme court. he says, i have freedom of speech. i have a right to go out on the streets, i have a right to speak out against the war, and i have a right to tell young men not to join the army to go abroad and to kill other people or be killed. the head of the supreme court was one of the most famous justices of all times. justice oliver wendell holmes. oliver wendell holmes. he said, and his case is really the foundation of the freedom of speech. oliver wendell holmes said, the right to free speech is not
12:29 pm
absolute, is not absolute, and cannot be tolerated, cannot be tolerated if it presents a clear and present danger to society. freedom of speech is not absolute, a cannot be tolerated in those instances. where? it presents a clear and present danger to society. and here is the most famous part. he said, you cannot go into a crowded movie theater and falsely yell what? fire. cause a stampede, people trampled to death.
12:30 pm
then when you are arrested for a, turn around and say, i was only exercising my freedom of what? speech. over the years, freedom of speech has been interpreted by the courts to mean more than just speaking. in the 1960's and 70's, high school students started wearing black armbands to school to protest the vietnam war. school principal's said, take off the black armband. or we are to suspend you from school. kids refused to take it off, they got suspended. parents sued. the court cases went all the way up to the supreme court and the supreme court rule. though students have a right to wear a black armband.
12:31 pm
it is another manifestation of what? speech. it's another way of speaking. another way of speaking. so then, a few years later you had people demonstrating and burning the american flag. and they got arrested for burning the american flag. and then the question became, you are going to be convicted and do time for burning the flag. the argument was, in burning the flag, it's my way of what? expressing my speech. >> how does this tie in with company censoring people they don't agree with? prof. prevas: say this again? >> how does this go with big companies like twitter, instagram and snapchat censoring people they don't agree with
12:32 pm
politically and taking their content off their platform, so what they want to say -- prof. prevas: that is a high issue. are you familiar with the snowden case? there is a lot of controversy about these various things with facebook, what is it, twitter and all this. one argument they would give you is, you don't have to go on if you don't like it. you are free not to use it. so what we do with your data is up to us. if you don't like it, don't get on. nobody is forcing you to get on. does that answer your question? are you sure? let's look at assembly, freedom of assembly. what does freedom of assembly mean? it means you have a right to hang around with people who think and feel the same way you
12:33 pm
do, and you had a right to protest with them against what you think the government is doing is wrong. so freedom of assembly. you have a right to associate with people who think the way you do, and to join with them in demonstrating against the government for what you think is wrong. >> it presents clear and present danger against society, right? prof. prevas: let me give you a couple of examples. back in the 1970's -- what's that place in illinois? skokie illinois? -- skokie, illinois?
12:34 pm
i think it was 1976 or 1977, i've got it in my notes, the american nazi party -- remember when we did the political spectrum, we dealt with neo-nazis, the american nazi party is way out on the right wing. the further out you go in the political spectrum, the more inclined to what are you? violence. to do what? bring about political change? the american nazi party files for a permit to march through skokie, illinois on adolf hitler's birthday. and to march through the jewish section of town, in full nazi uniforms. the city said, no, we are not giving you the permit, and the
12:35 pm
nazis said, you are violating our freedom of assembly, and on top of that, our freedom of speech, because on adolf hitler's birthday, you are expressing our political view. and it was denied. they sued. do you know at the american not the party did, they got the aclu, the american civil liberties union to defend them. the american civil liberties union is a very liberal group made up of lawyers, and they take cases that they feel are right and they argue in pro bono. they argue them for free. the nazis on the right go to the american civil liberties union on the left and they get a
12:36 pm
jewish lawyer. and they say to him, we want you to argue our case. a jewish lawyer who will argue the case to the neo-nazis to march through the jewish section of town on adolf hitler's birthday. and you know what the lawyer did, he argued it. he says everything the neo-nazis stand for discussed me, but it's not about them, it's about their right to do what under the constitution, under the bill of rights? to march and to express their views. just because i don't like their views, doesn't mean they cannot express them. he argued the case for them. he won the case and the neo-nazi said, we won't march, we will march in chicago, and they
12:37 pm
marched in chicago. give me an example recently where extreme right-wing groups wanted to meet together to demonstrate to assemble and it turned violent, and it ripped this country apart. >> the black lives matter movement. prof. prevas: where do the fires burn? charlottesville, virginia. that was what, two years ago? the neo-nazis, other right-wing groups wanted to meet. what were they protesting? taking down confederate war monuments. so who showed up? black lives matter showed up, antifa, the two groups clashed.
12:38 pm
cops cannot deny them the right. free speech, freedom of assembly means you are free to say what you want so long as you stay within those parameters, even though you might not like what the other side is saying but have a right to what? that is what makes america great. >> what happens when it comes to destruction of property and stuff like that? prof. prevas: the destruction of property is against the law. it's against the law. but invariably, these groups, when that happens, when the virus breaks out, their excuse always is on the left and right, self-defense. we were defending ourselves. >> did the government have the right to do with a did to go into waco, texas?
12:39 pm
prof. prevas: are you familiar with waco? branch davidians were a religious group led by the sky news that he was the messiah. he had a compound in waco, and he was holding religious services and had a dozen wives. the argument is that he was having sex with 12 and 13-year-old girls who were part of the religious group, and stop hauling all these weapons. the feds went in there because of the weapons violation, and also because the argument was he was having sexual relations with underage girls and that's against the law.
12:40 pm
so weapons violations in that one. it turned bad. there was a seizure, and i think something like 80 or 85 branch davidians were killed, as well as federal agents. questions on that one? let's look at the last one, freedom of the press. freedom of the press is extremely important. is it quarter to five -- is it quarter to 5:00? quarter to 5:00 and i have not even gotten out of the first amendment. you see what i mean when i told you we could spend the whole semester. freedom of press, write to newspapers, journals to write about politics, to write about what's going on.
12:41 pm
without censorship from the government. and in recent years there have been two very controversial cases because the press argues we should be able to write whatever we want so that americans can read the material and understand what's going on in the country, politically, economically, sociologically, and you cannot do that if you are going to have censorship. gentlemen, most of the world has press censorship. now, there are two interesting cases here. one deals with pornography and the other one deals with the hydrogen bomb. in the 1960's, up until the 1960's, pornography was against the law. if you had orono you could beat
12:42 pm
-- if you had porno, you could be arrested and sent to prison. this group had photography and it went to court. the argument was, if i want to distribute a porno magazine, that is my right under the freedom of press. and the supreme court agreed with them. and pornography became legal under the doctrine of freedom of the press. the second case is really interesting. a magazine printed in addition called, "how to build your own hydrogen bomb." and the printed step-by-step, and the federal government, i think it was the energy commission, one of the federal agencies got wind of it, the magazines have not been distributed yet, they were being housed in a warehouse. the feds went to the government, they went to the courts and they
12:43 pm
said, give us an injunction so we can raid that warehouse, sees all those copies -- seize all those copies before they hit the stands. the publisher said, we have freedom of press. we have a right, we did not use any top-secret, stolen information to do this. we have a right to print a magazine. how to build your own hydrogen bomb. and it won't be the supreme court. and the government's argument was, how likely is it that some guy will go down to his basement and build a hydrogen bomb? not very likely. it was other countries that will buy that magazine, but it will help them advance the nuclear programs so they can get nuclear weapons faster. the federal government will need
12:44 pm
to seize and destroy those magazines. there is a clear and present one. -- present what? danger. that lines up the first amendment, i cannot believe we have gone through 45 minutes. but let me do the second amendment and then we will call it a day. the second amendment. the extremely controversial amendment today. in amendment that gives the issues that you think are tearing the society apart today. gun rights, affordable care act, all of those are at the forefront of the tension and our society today. and they will come out in the
12:45 pm
bill of rights interpretations. what does the second amendment say. i know that john has memorized it by heart. what's it say, john? south carolina, right? >> i don't know it word by word. prof. prevas: a well regulated the right of the people , to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. you can look in your textbooks, the back of the book has the constitution. take a look about a minute. a well regulated militia being regulated to the security of the well-being of the state. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
12:46 pm
what does that mean? the nra, national rifle association, which is rare on the political spectrum, to the right, says it's simple, yet just take the second half of the amendment. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. what does keep arms mean? i have a right to own a weapon. what does bear arms mean? i have a right to carry it. conservative say every american has a god-given right. >> a lot of liberal politicians force buybacks, does that violate this amendment? prof. prevas: no, they are not making you turn your gun in. >> they are forcing you to give them your guns, but they will pay you for your gun, but you
12:47 pm
have to give them the gun. prof. prevas: give me one example where they force you to turn in your gun. >> they are not doing it now, but that's something they talk about doing in the future. prof. prevas: who talks about? >> just in spirit liberal. prof. prevas: i am not a liberal. i have never said i am a liberal. let's take a look at that amendment. does that amendment mean you have a right to own and carry a gun, or does that amendment mean you have a right to a gun if you are a part of the militia? the modern term for militia today is national guard. do you remember the florida national guard or the south carolina national guard? liberals say you have a right to have a gun that's issued to you by the national guard. conservatives say, no. you have a right to have a gun, you have a right to own it, you
12:48 pm
have a right to carry it. there are some interesting cases. up until 1939, the courts ruled there is an associative requirement to that amendment. in other words, you have a right to a gun as long as you are associated with a militia. then we had, in 2008 or 2009, heller versus the district of columbia. the heller decision. then, heller sued the district of columbia. district of columbia, which has more police than any city in the united states said, you cannot own a gun, a handgun unless, one, you have a permit, and two, you are a member of the police
12:49 pm
force, or the fbi, or the secret service, or the u.s. capitol police. heller sued and heller argued, i should be able to have a handgun in my house to defend myself. i don't have to be associated with the d.c. national guard to own a gun. and the supreme court ruled, you're right. the supreme court ruled gun ownership is an individual right, not an associative way. but you have over's earned d.c.'s -- overturned d.c.'s rule and said you can have a gun. the most recent case, which is before now, comes out in new york city. because of heller new york city was forced -- new york city has one of the toughest anti-gun laws on the books and one of the highest murder rates. new york decided, because of the
12:50 pm
heller decision, we will have to let people have handguns, but you have to have a permanent, the handgun must in your house, or it must stay in your business. you can't transport it. if you get caught transporting it you can be put in jail. and now, the opponents of that law have taken it to the supreme court and said, it's restrictive. if i want to take my handgun from my home to my second home in long island, i should be able to do that. if i want to take my handgun and go to a shooting range, i should be able to do that. and that landau is up before the courts, and we will see how they will rule. gentlemen, i think my time is just about up, any question. >> are there all types of arms or is it dependent on what type of gun you can own?
12:51 pm
prof. prevas: the federal government -- past cases have ruled the federal government has a right to regulate certain highly destructive firearms and machine guns. fully automatic weapons. rocket propelled grenades. so, again, if you look at it, it it will have to be adjudicated by the courts when someone challenges it. gentlemen, any questions? >> i understand the gun laws applies to bearing arms, but how about a point system when they come into the u.s.? prof. prevas: the courts ruled that you can have a regular gun, but district of columbia,
12:52 pm
wherever you are living has a right to demand that you get a permit for it. and they have a right to set the requirements for a permit. i will to you in interesting case, do we got time? i didn't interesting case. mother was being sued by her son. the mother is like 80 something years old and the sun is like 60 years old. so i get the case. i said that the guys suing his mother for $3000 and/or the return of all of his guns. so i said to him in court, i said, what is the issue? he said, my mother, when i was drunk, came into my trailer and took all my handguns back to her house, walked them up and she won't give them back to me.
12:53 pm
so i said to the mother, do you have his guns? she said, yes. and she said to me, can i talk to you in private, please? i said, sure. so we left the courtroom, we went outside, she said to me, he is an alcoholic, he's got a plate in his head, he is seeing a psychiatrist and he has -- he is seeing the v.a. psychiatrists and he has hallucinations. he's dangerous. i said, can we use that to take his guns away. i said to the clerk, put his name in the database for florida and let me see his arrest and conviction record. and the clerk spits out a long list. the guy has been arrested 10 or 12 times. and the arrests all had to do with guns. he's either walking outside of his trailer and shooting his
12:54 pm
gun, some kids were making noise so he went out there and shot the gun. the police came and took the gun away from him and arrested him. but he had a right to get all of his guns back, why? because florida law says you have to be convicted of a crime. he had been arrested multiple times, but never convicted. the state's attorney would either dismiss the charge or the judge found him not guilty. so because he had no convictions on his record, they had to return the guns to him. there was no choice because florida law says its convictions that prohibit you from having the gun, not arrests. give me that again? >> isn't their mental health -- there is nothing that can stop him from getting the guns because of his mental condition? prof. prevas: i said to him,
12:55 pm
look, why don't we do this. i said, are you seeing a psychiatrist, he said yes. i said why don't you let your mom hold the guns, come back in 60 days and bring me a letter from the psychiatrist that says you are ok, and you can have the guns and we will give them back to you. do you think any doctor is going to write a letter? no. but he was happy with it. he left and i never saw him again. i don't know whether he got the guns back. >> you said you were out of place by doing that, how so? prof. prevas: because legally he had a right to those guns, but i had to balance positive law, that said he had a right to those guns, with what? natural law, which said to me it's wrong, it's wrong to give him the guns. gentlemen, enjoyed it.
12:56 pm
wednesday, why don't we look at the force him, search and seizure. enjoyed it gentlemen. >> listen to lectures in history on the go by streaming our podcasts anywhere, anytime. you are watching american 3.story tv, only on c-span [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> this is american history tv on c-span three, where each weekend, we feature 48 hours of programs exploring our nation's past.
12:57 pm
>> this week, we are looking back to the state in history. >> good evening, this is ronald reagan, president of the united states. i am speaking to you, the peoples of the soviet union, on the occasion of the new year. i know that in the soviet union, as it is all around the world, this is a season of hope and expectation, a time for family together, a time for prayer, a time to think about peace. that is true in america, too. at this time of year, americans traveled across the country in their cars, by train, or by airplane to be together with their families. many americans came to the united states from other countries and at this time of year, they look forward to hosting friends and family from their homelands. most of us celebrate christmas or hanukkah and as part of those celebrations, we go to church or synagogue and then gather around the family dinner table. after giving thanks for our blessings, we share a
12:58 pm
traditional holiday meal of goose, turkey, or roast beef and exchange gifts. on new year's eve, we gather again and, like you, we raise our glasses in a toast to the year to come, for our hopes for ourselves, our families, and yes, for our nation and the world. friendss and gentlemen, , as we celebrate the new year, i am glad to address the citizens of the united states of wish seasonso greetings and best wishes from all soviet people. but the first of january is a day when we take stock of the past year and try to look ahead into the coming year. ended withar, 1987, an event which can be regarded as a good omen. in washington, president reagan on theigned the treaty
12:59 pm
elimination of intermediate and shorter range missiles. that treaty marks the first up along the path of reducing nuclear arms and that is its enduring value. but the treaty also has another merit. it has wrought our two peoples closer together. we are entering the new year with a hope for continued progress, progress toward a safer world. >> follow us on social media at c-span history for more on this day in history clips and posts. >> you are watching american history tv. c-span3ekend on exploring our nation's past , c-span style. american history tv on c-span3. created by america's cable television companies. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide american history tv to
1:00 pm
viewers as a public service. >> in an event hosted by the heritage foundation, participants examine the role of property rights and free markets in the mayflower compact. the panelists discuss why these concepts were important to early settlers and the influence it has had on today's economy. the heritage foundation provided this video for their event. angela: we are very excited about our partnership with dr. erik paterson and the religious freedom institute as we celebrate the 400th anniversary of the signing of the mayflower compact. as you know, this happened on november 11, 1620. part 3 of our series is titled "the mayflower compact to the foundations of property rights, liberty, and prosperity." another fruit of liberty valued by the founders is the idea and practice of america as a commercial republic. the united states is not a


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on