News on Youtube Aug 3 2018

Mr. Beat presents

Supreme Court Briefs

Havana, Cuba June 27, 1839

A Spanish ship called The Amistad (ahmichad) leaves for the Province of Puerto Principe , another part of Cuba.

On board, 53 illegally purchased African slaves.

On July 2nd, one of the slaves broke free and freed others on the ship.

Soon there was an uprising.

After a big struggle that resulted in the deaths of the captain of the ship and at least three others, the slaves took over the ship, forcing two dudes named Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montez to redirect the ship across the Atlantic Ocean to Africa.

Ruiz and Montez deceived the Africans, however, and ended up sailing the Amistad up the east coast of the United States, dropping anchor just off the coast of Long Island, New York, on August 26, 1839.

The United States Revenue Cutter Service...wait wait a second...What the heck is this organization?

Well just think of them as the Coast Guard before the Coast Guard existed.

Anyway, the United States Revenue Cutter Service, led by Americans Thomas Gedney and Richard Meade, arrested the Africans after they reached the shore and took custody of the Amistad.

Gedney and Meade made sure the Africans were brought to Connecticut, since slavery was still technically legal in that state.

After President Martin Van Buren found out about them, he was like, send them back to Cuba to go on trial.

Spain, who controlled Cuba at the time, was like "yeah, bring them here."

After all, the Amistad was a Spanish ship and Ruiz and Montez were Spanish citizens.

Britain chimed in since they had a deal with Spain prohibiting the slave trade south of the equator and said that this slave uprising at sea fell under international law.

But a bunch of abolitionists were ultimately able to pressure the United States government to keep the Africans in the country, and they got a trial in the District of Connecticut.

Keep in mind that at the time, the slave trade was illegal in the United States.

The Africans were charged with mutiny and murder.

In court, there were a lot of people involved and wanting stuff.

First, Ruiz and Montez argued the Africans were slaves and their property.

They had a right to regain control of them.

And then there was a lawyer representing Spain, who argued the the slaves rightfully be returned to Ruiz and Montez or sent back to Africa.

The Africans, who were represented by an abolitionist group called the Amistad Committee, all argued that they were born free in their native Africa and unlawfully kidnapped to be sold as slaves.

Plus, they landed in New York, where slavery was illegal.

The Amistad Committee also accused Ruiz and Montez of assault, kidnapping, and false imprisonment.

And then, Gedney, as well as several others who helped Ruiz and Montez "rescue" the "cargo," aka Africans, argued they deserved a piece of the pie.

They were like, we helped you get your slaves, so can we have a few?

Another Spanish dude named Antonio Vega tried to get the captain's personal slave, claiming he actually owned him.

Whew. What a mess of a case.

The district court ruled that the Africans aboard the Amistad were unlawfully kidnapped (and you can't do that), and ordered the U.S. government to return them to Africa.

Martin Van Buren ordered the U.S. attorney, Henry Gilpin, to appeal the case to the Circuit Court for the Connecticut District,

and some of the other dudes appealed for their piece of the pie as well.

The United States basically argued it was legally obligated to return the Amistad and everything and everyone on it to Spain.

Oh, and here's another silly argument the United States made.

Believe it or not, they argued the Africans violated the American laws that said the slave trade was illegal.

You know, like they were voluntarily trying to import themselves into the United States as slaves or something?

Anyway, the Circuit Court agreed with the lower court, so then the United States appealed again to the Supreme Court.

By this time, the entire country was watching this case with fascination.

It really opened a lot of eyes about slavery, and really fired a bunch of abolitionists up.

The Court heard arguments on February 23, 1841.

Former President and son of another former President, John Quincy Adams, represented the Africans in front of the Supreme Court, passionately arguing for their freedom.

The main question the justices had to answer was, were the Africans aboard the Amistad the property of Ruiz and Montez?

The Court said "no." On March 9, 1841, it announced it had sided with the Africans.

It was 7-1.

The Court said the Africans were never citizens of Spain, and were illegally taken from their homes in Africa, where they were free people.

In addition, Africans aboard the Amistad were just trying to go home.

Justice Joseph Story, who wrote the opinion for the case, called the whole thing "peculiar and embarrassing."

The Court ordered the Africans be sent to the President to be sent back to Africa as soon as possible.

The Amistad Committee helped take care of the Africans until they could raise enough money to return them to Africa.

In 1842, the 39 surviving Africans, along with a few missionaries, sailed to Sierra Leone.

United States v. The Amistad, aka The Amistad Case, was one of the most important Supreme Court cases involving slavery in American history.

It helped the abolitionist movement grow, putting the issue front and center for many Americans for the first time.

24 years after the decision, the United States would abolish slavery with the passing of the 13th Amendment.

I'll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!

My Supreme Court Briefs videos haven't been doing as well as my other videos.

So what might change that is if you like this video.

And so I'm having this deal where, if I get 500 likes

within the first 48 hours of this being posted

I will do the Kiki Do You Love Me Dance Challenge.

and it will be livestreamed, and you'll see me making a fool out of myself. It'll be great.

This is my lovely wife, Shannon. She's holding up

a board that was sent to me by Bootstrap Boards

and it's pretty nice

If you want one, I've put a link below.

Thanks for watching!

Come here!

Say hi! Hi

(Mr. Beat awkwardly laughs)

For more infomation >> United States v. The Amistad - Duration: 6:48.

-------------------------------------------

United States Coast Guard Celebrates 228 Birthday - Duration: 2:15.

For more infomation >> United States Coast Guard Celebrates 228 Birthday - Duration: 2:15.

-------------------------------------------

Daniel Disalvo on Broke Blue States - Duration: 8:58.

For more infomation >> Daniel Disalvo on Broke Blue States - Duration: 8:58.

-------------------------------------------

Princess Madeleine of Sweden Is Moving Her Family to the United States! - Duration: 2:33.

 Princess Madeleine of Sweden is officially relocating to the U.S.A.!  Madeleine and her husband Chris O'Neill revealed Thursday that they are heading to Florida this fall with their three children: Princess Leonore, 4, and Prince Nicolas, 3, and Princess Adrienne, 4 months

 "The time and opportunity for the United States is good for the family when the children are still in pre-school age," the Swedish Royal Court announced in a press release

 Madeleine will continue her work with the World Childhood Foundation after the move

 "Princess Madeleine has a great commitment to children's rights and will continue working with the World Childhood Foundation and, through the move, be able to focus more on the activities in the United States," the Swedish Royal Court announced

 They added that O'Neill "has previously been working in the United States but will continue his business in Europe

"  The royal family is no stranger to settling down around the world. Although the family has been living in London during recent years, the 36-year-old royal announced she would return to Sweden to give birth to their third child earlier this year

 Madeleine and her family are also familiar with the United States. On top of having a summer home in Florida, they previously lived in New York City

Madeleine moved to the Big Apple in 2010, where she began working for her mother's, Queen Silvia, World Childhood Foundation as a projects manager

 The couple lived in New York during the early years of their marriage, even welcoming their first child, Princess Leonore, at a private hospital stateside

 In addition to their big moving announcement, they also released a new official portrait of their newly expanded family of five

In the shot by photographer Lena Ahlström, O'Neill cradles baby Adrienne while Madeleine sweetly holds hands with Nicolas

It's Princess Leonore, however, who steals the show: wearing a pink dress with a matching bow in her hair, the little princess puts on a big grin while standing on a rock and holding flowers

 Despite her royal status, Madeleine insists she's just a "normal mom."  "They wake me up and we fix breakfast together and the breakfast flies all over the place!" she exclusively told PEOPLE at the 2016 World Childhood Foundation USA ThankYou Gala in New York City

"And then we go out to the park and we swing, we try to do a lot of activities because my little Leonore, she has lots of energy, so we have to keep her stimulated and busy

"

For more infomation >> Princess Madeleine of Sweden Is Moving Her Family to the United States! - Duration: 2:33.

-------------------------------------------

Trump administration plans rollback of fuel standards, setting up legal fight with states - Duration: 3:27.

JUDY WOODRUFF: One of President Trump's key ambitions has been to roll back or revoke

actions taken by his predecessor, President Obama.

On climate change, the administration says it believes that auto emission standards that

were supposed to take effect in the next few years are too tough and hurt the U.S. economy.

Thus, the president's latest move announced today, lowering car fuel efficiency requirements.

BARACK OBAMA, Former President of the United States: So we raised fuel efficiency, helped

consumers, helped improve air quality, and we're making better cars than ever.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Over his tenure, President Obama put in place rules that would have nearly

doubled average fuel economy standards in the United States.

His administration required that cars and light trucks be on track to meet average fuel

efficiencies of 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025, in an effort to curb tailpipe emissions

of climate-changing pollutants.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: We had unnecessary regulations that were hurting

our economy and hurting our country.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The Trump administration has long argued those standards went too far.

Today's proposal would freeze current standards at 2020 levels, which require new vehicles

to average roughly 30 miles per gallon.

By 2021, the revised standards would be capped at 37 miles per gallon.

But that would be far short of the Obama standards.

Bill Wehrum, an assistant EPA administrator, told reporters on a call today that the Obama

era rules already succeeded in cutting emissions, but making them even tougher would raise the

average vehicle price tag by more than $2,300.

BILL WEHRUM, Assistant EPA Administrator: What we want to do here is occupy a sweet

spot here where we have good, aggressive standards in place, but not so aggressive that we create

other kinds of problems that impose a much greater price on society here.

We will leave the standards in a place where we're not imposing undue costs on manufacturers,

we're not imposing undue costs on consumers, who want affordable vehicles.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Wehrum said that rolling back fuel standards will allow Americans to afford

newer and safer cars.

The administration says that that mean up to 1,000 fewer traffic deaths every year.

Some researchers, however, say they're doubtful that freezing fuel standards would significantly

affect traffic deaths.

Today's announcement also sets up a looming legal battle by rescinding tougher emissions

standards in California and other states.

XAVIER BECERRA (D), California Attorney General: We intend to stand firm and protect the existing

clean car standards that our nation has in place.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Today, California's attorney general, Xavier Becerra, vowed that some 20

states are prepared to fight back in court.

Becerra said that the Trump administration plan would dramatically increase carbon emissions

and gas prices.

XAVIER BECERRA: Who pays for this reckless action by the Trump administration?

We do, at the pump and with our health.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Automakers are concerned about having two different standards.

In a statement, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said, "We urge California and

the federal government to find a commonsense solution."

For more infomation >> Trump administration plans rollback of fuel standards, setting up legal fight with states - Duration: 3:27.

-------------------------------------------

How Calif. air quality rules affect other states - Duration: 1:33.

The Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration have announced plans to roll

back Obama-era regulations on emissions and fuel economy

standards. But the decision could severely impact air

quality for a large number of Americans. Under those Obama-era

standards, automakers were on track to raise their vehicles'

fuel efficiency to around 50 miles per gallon by 2025. The

EPA's planned rules would keep the current efficiency standards

at about 35 miles per gallon. Maybe more importantly, the

NHTSA also plans to revoke California's right to set its

own strict air quality rules. This could set back decades of

progress California has made against its smog problem. And

because many states have adopted California's regulations

themselves, it could also make air quality worse for people all

over the U.S. Twelve other states and Washington, D.C.,

have adopted California's rules as their own. That covers about

113 million people, who together make up about 35 percent of the

U.S. automobile market. Automakers aren't happy about

the switch, either. Ford said it doesn't want any rollback and

would keep making cars consistent with the Paris

Climate Accord. Honda said it could not stop making

fuel-efficient cars because they're in high demand in other

markets. California and 17 other states have already sued the EPA

to keep it from weakening fuel efficiency standards. Now,

California's attorney general has promised to challenge the

NHTSA's plans in court, too.

For more infomation >> How Calif. air quality rules affect other states - Duration: 1:33.

-------------------------------------------

What do states need to secure upcoming elections? - Duration: 6:32.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But first: The country's top intelligence and national security officials

gave stark warnings today on Russia's ongoing efforts to meddle in this November's elections.

In a rare joint appearance from the White House Briefing Room, the Trump administration

agency heads acknowledged the threat, while touting their stepped-up election security

initiatives.

DAN COATS, U.S. National Intelligence Director: The intelligence community continues to be

concerned about the threats of upcoming U.S. elections.

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI Director: Make no mistake, the scope of this foreign influence threat

is broad and deep.

GEN.

PAUL NAKASONE, United States Cyber Command: We're not going to accept meddling in the

elections.

And it's very unambiguous.

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security: I am pleased to inform you that,

to date, all 50 states, the District of Columbia and over 900 local governments have partnered

with DHS in order to bolster the resilience of the nation's election infrastructure.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, what does the administration's announcement means for the states?

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla is a Democrat, and he oversees elections there.

Mr. Padilla, thank you very much for joining us.

Before I asked you about what the Trump administration officials had to say today, tell us, from

your perspective, are you seeing interference already at this point in California's elections

and discussions about election in the politics of your state?

ALEX PADILLA (D), California Secretary of State: Look if you look back from 2016 to

today and going forward, are there folks trying to find the vulnerabilities in our systems

to meddle with our elections?

Absolutely.

We see that sort of scanning activity on a daily basis.

That's nothing new.

But that's very different than whether systems are actually compromised or hacked or breached

specifically.

And so it's just a reminder.

The Russian -- indictment from a couple of weeks ago was another reminder.

And today's press conference is reminder that the threats keep coming.

The lights are blinking, as our intelligence leaders have said.

And so our defenses and security measures need to continue to increase in sophistication

as well.

And we need more resources to stay ahead of the threats.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, what did you make of what administration and agency officials had to

say today?

Were you reassured by their message?

ALEX PADILLA: Look, I appreciate what they had to say.

But I can't help but call out the obvious here.

Number one, this is agency leaders.

It's still not the commander in chief unequivocally saying the Russians meddled with the 2016

elections.

And that is critically important.

And you have got to hold the Russians accountable if you're going to be taken seriously about

being a partner in protecting the 2018 elections, the 2020 elections and beyond.

Number two, none of what they announced today, what they're doing in partnership with state

and local governments, is anything new.

They have been doing this, rightfully so, since the end of the Obama administration.

So it does need to continue.

But I think state secretaries of state have been cleared in the following.

Number one, we need the Trump administration to hold the Russians accountable.

Number two, we need ongoing investments in the upgrade and modernization of our election

infrastructure.

A once-in-15-year investment in election security doesn't cut it.

And, number three, the White House has yet to name an election security coordinator,

a qualified, well-respected election security coordinator.

That alone speaks volumes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, when they say they are taking this seriously, that this an all-out

effort -- we heard the homeland security secretary.

They're working closely with all 50 states, the District of Columbia, hundreds of local

governments.

You're saying that's not sufficient?

ALEX PADILLA: It isn't sufficient.

We are working.

We are beginning to share information.

But part of what states have shared with the federal government is the need for additional

resources.

The 4300 million and change from last month was helpful, but, frankly, what Congress appropriated

last month was leftover butterfly ballot, hanging chad money from the wake of the Florida

2000 debacle.

That is not new money that's been approved by Congress or the president has called for

in the wake of the 2016 elections.

So, we need additional investment for the threats of today, not the threats of 15 years

ago.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How much more money are you calling for?

ALEX PADILLA: Here's the -- I think how -- a good comparison.

It's not just Trump.

It's congressional Republicans.

Last week, it was the House of Representatives.

This week -- just yesterday, it was the United States Senate defeating a proposal to invest

$250 million in additional money for election cyber-security grants to the states.

At the same time, approving a $700 billion defense authorization.

Protecting our elections is a matter of national security.

For less than one-tenth of 1 percent of what was given for defense spending, you could

do so much to help further secure and protect the bedrock of our democracy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And it's an interesting point you make, because, today, the homeland security

secretary, Nielsen, said the cyber-threat now exceeds what -- she said the danger of

a physical attack on the United States.

Just finally, we heard the FBI director, Christopher Wray, say that, compared to 2016, this year,

we're not seeing the same kind of efforts to specifically target election infrastructure,

but other efforts to influence public opinion continue.

What do you see in that regard?

ALEX PADILLA: Look, I think we cannot rest on our laurels.

We take nothing for granted.

There's different types of attacks that have been coming our way and will continue.

Is it a threat on our elections infrastructure?

Absolutely.

And they will keep coming.

Is it a threat to simply create chaos, confusion and undermine confidence in elections?

Voter confidence is so critical in the strength of our democracy.

We saw that and more in 2016.

We're seeing that and more in 2018 and beyond.

So, again, our safeguard, our security measures have worked to protect elections thus far,

but we have to stay at least one step ahead of the bad guys.

JUDY WOODRUFF: California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, we thank you.

ALEX PADILLA: Thank you.

For more infomation >> What do states need to secure upcoming elections? - Duration: 6:32.

-------------------------------------------

Princess Madeleine of Sweden Is Moving Her Family to the United States! | Breaking News - Duration: 2:33.

Princess Madeleine of Sweden is officially relocating to the U S A. Madeleine and her husband Chris O' Neill revealed Thursday that they are heading to Florida this fall with their three children: Princess Leonore, 4, and Prince Nicolas, 3, and Princess Adrienne, 4 months

The time and opportunity for the United States is good for the family when the children are still in pre-school age, the Swedish Royal Court announced in a press release

Madeleine will continue her work with the World Childhood Foundation after the move

Princess Madeleine has a great commitment to children's rights and will continue working with the World Childhood Foundation and, through the move, be able to focus more on the activities in the United States, the Swedish Royal Court announced

They added that O'Neill has previously been working in the United States but will continue his business in Europe. The royal family is no stranger to settling down around the world.

Although the family has been living in London during recent years, the 36-year-old royal announced she would return to Sweden to give birth to their third child earlier this year

Madeleine and her family are also familiar with the United States. On top of having a summer home in Florida, they previously lived in New York City

Madeleine moved to the Big Apple in 2010, where she began working for her mother's, Queen Silvia, World Childhood Foundation as a projects manager

The couple lived in New York during the early years of their marriage, even welcoming their first child, Princess Leonore, at a private hospital stateside

In addition to their big moving announcement, they also released a new official portrait of their newly expanded family of five

In the shot by photographer Lena Ahlstrom, O'Neill cradles baby Adrienne while Madeleine sweetly holds hands with Nicolas

It's Princess Leonore, however, who steals the show: wearing a pink dress with a matching bow in her hair, the little princess puts on a big grin while standing on a rock and holding flowers. Despite her royal status, Madeleine insists she's just a normal mom.

They wake me up and we fix breakfast together and the breakfast flies all over the place! she exclusively told PEOPLE at the 2016 World Childhood Foundation USA ThankYou Gala in New York City

And then we go out to the park and we swing, we try to do a lot of activities because my little Leonore, she has lots of energy, so we have to keep her stimulated and busy