Part I: Foundational Cases on Constitutional Structure

An Introduction To Constitutional Law Video Library: Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), Marbury v. Madison (1803), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Barron v. City of Baltimore (1833)

An Introduction to Constitutional Law by Barnett and Blackman has sold tens of thousands of copies, and has been adopted by educators at every level--law school, undergraduate, and high school. Each copy of the book provides access to our fourteen-hour video library. These rich videos bring the cases to life with photographs, archival video, and audio from the Supreme Court.

And now, the Foundation for the Constitution has secured the rights to post all of the videos for free on YouTube. In this post, we will include the videos from Part I: Foundational Cases on Constitutional Structure. Subscribe to see the remaining seventy videos as they are posted. We hope you enjoy watching these videos as much as we enjoyed producing them.

Part I:  Foundational Cases on Constitutional Structure

⚖️ Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

⚖️ Marbury v. Madison (1803)

⚖️ McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

⚖️ Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

⚖️ Barron v. City of Baltimore (1833)

Comments

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

What is the “Foundation for the Constitution”? There is no public facing information about this organization beyond barebones EIN/charity listings from charity evaluation websites and this blogpost. The YouTube channel, which has 2 subscribers, along with the website seems to suggest it’s a charity founded by Prof. Barnett to host his own academic materials — I am aware of a lot of professors who have shell companies for their moonlighting income but it seems fairly unusual to structure them as charities.

Does the charity have any donors? Who? What does it mean that the charity has “secured” the rights to post the video? If the charity is just Prof. Barnett, isn’t he just securing the rights from himself and you?

It seems odd to do a blog post promoting this charity’s work and eliding the personal connection and any of the details about how this was organized and why.

I just mention this because you have written extensively about your views about what constitutes ethical disclosure for judges — and critical of, you know, the 99% of the public who actually thinks judges should disclose taking buckets of cash and gifts from patrons. There’s obviously no law against self-dealing on your blog or against professors trying to set up vehicles to make money moonlighting, but just in the interest of candor and disclosure, don’t you think it makes sense to offer basic details when you’re doing this kind of self-dealing?

To me it does. I can’t imagine writing something promoting my own work and not acknowledging that the “organization” that “secured” the rights to my work is just me. It would feel to me like a curious reader might assume this is some kind of shady scheme.

[Vryedni]

If the charity is just Prof. Barnett, isn’t he just securing the rights from himself and you?

The casebook publisher (West?) might have rights that need to be cleared.

[Commenter_XY]

Professor, thanks for making it available for no charge. It makes a difference.

[Jett's Pop]

"every level–law school"

How many levels are there?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Thank you for the sample.

PBS had some interesting reenactments to Marshall cases that can be found on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGTkRP4v8tM

C-SPAN had the Landmark Cases series. Interesting as well.