Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Do you know your rights? Hit refresh on your constitutional knowledge!

The 2nd Amendment: How the gun control debate went crazy

The gun control debate has been at fever pitch for several years now, and as things fail to change the stats get grimmer. The New York Times reports that there have been 239 school shootings nationwide since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre, where 20 first graders and six adults were killed. Six years later, 438 more people have been shot in schools, and for 138 of them it was fatal. Here, journalist and author Kurt Andersen reads the Second Amendment, and explains its history from 1791 all the way to now. "What people need to know is that the Second Amendment only recently became such a salient amendment," says Andersen. It's only in the last 50 years that the gun debate has gone haywire, and it was the moment the NRA went from reasonable to absolutist. So what does the "right to bear arms" really mean? What was a firearm in the 1790s, and what is a firearm now? "Compared to [the] many, many, many rounds-per-second firearms that we have today, it's the same word but virtually a different machine." Kurt Andersen is the author of Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire.

The 5th Amendment: Do not break in case of emergency

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is often talked about but rarely read in full. The reason? Counterterrorism expert Amaryllis Fox explains that it has, these days, simply become shorthand for not saying anything in court to incriminate yourself. But the full text states how important the due process of law is to every American. So perhaps learning the full text, not just the shorthand, is an important step to being an American citizen. You can find out more about Amaryllis Fox here.

The 13th Amendment: The unjust prison to profit pipeline

The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished slavery—but it still remains legal under one condition. The amendment reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Today in America, big corporations profit of cheap prison labor in both privatized and state-run prisons. Shaka Senghor knows this second wave of slavery well—he spent 19 years in jail, working for a starting wage of 17 cents per hour, in a prison where a 15-minute phone call costs between $3-$15. In this video, he shares the exploitation that goes on in American prisons, and how the 13th Amendment allows slavery to continue. He also questions the profit incentive to incarcerate in this country: why does America represent less than 5% of the world's population, but almost 25% of the world's prisoners? Shaka Senghor's latest venture is Mind Blown Media.

The 14th Amendment: History's most radical idea?

In 1868, three years after slavery was abolished, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted, granting equal protection under the law to every born and naturalized U.S. citizen. For CNN news commentator Van Jones this amendment is, in his words, the "whole enchilada." It's not the most popular amendment—it doesn't get name-dropped in TV courtroom dramas, or fiercely debated before elections—but to Jones it is a weighty principle that was far ahead of its time. "It doesn't say equal protection under the law unless you're a lesbian. That's not what it says. It doesn't say equal protection under the law unless you're African American. That's not what it says. It says if you're in the jurisdiction you get equal protection under the law. That's radical. In 10,000 years of human history, that's radical." Van Jones is the author of Beyond the Messy Truth: How We Came Apart, How We Come Together.

The 26th Amendment: The act of voting should empower people

Is a 55.7% voter turnout really enough? Bryan Cranston was disappointed with the 2016 presidential election, not for the outcome but for the process. According to Census Bureau figures it was a bumper year for voter engagement with 137.5 million total ballots cast—but is just over half of the eligible voters really that impressive? The Pew Research Center shows that the U.S. still trails behind most developed nations in voter registration and turnout. "I think we've devalued the honor and privilege of voting and we've become complacent, and maybe a bit cynical about our place and rights as citizens and our duties and responsibilities," says Cranston. The good news? Millennials and Gen Xers are on an upward trend in civic engagement, casting more votes than Boomers and older generations in the 2016 election. Cranston reminds us of how empowering the 26th Amendment is in granting voting rights to Americans over the age of 18. "We can't take that lightly," says Cranston. It's a timely reminder too, as 40 million people are expected to drop off that 55.7% figure for the midterm elections, mostly from the millennial, unmarried women and people of color demographics. Bryan Cranston's new book is the spectacular memoir A Life in Parts.

More playlists
  • Universities are places where there academic freedom thrives. Such open exchange of ideas creates an environments conducive to civil discourse — dialog with one another with the goal of reaching the truth.
  • Philanthropists should, ideally, provide resources to institutions that promote scholarly work. The reason for this is because such work benefits society at large.
  • When you engage with people who don't agree with you, you learn how to understand viewpoints from different angles. The learning that takes place at these moments is often transformative, mind-expanding.
  • Ayahuasca is a psychedelic brew that's been used by Amazonian tribes for centuries.
  • Recent research suggests that ayahuasca might help reduce depression. The new study examined whether those effects might extend to suicidality.
  • The results were mixed, but it seems ayahuasca shows some potential as a suicide intervention.

The psychedelic brew ayahuasca might show promise in the treatment of suicidality, the results of a new study suggest.

Ayahuasca — commonly made from the leaves of the Psychotria viridis shrub and stalks of the Banisteriopsis caapi vine — has been used for centuries by Amazonian tribes as a spiritual medicine. It can cause intense, hours-long psychedelic experiences that have been described in countless ways, from life-changing to psychologically-distressing. In recent years, "ayahuasca retreats" in countries such as Peru and Brazil have become popular among Westerners seeking spiritual healing.

More recently, scientists have begun exploring the potential therapeutic benefits of ayahuasca in the clinical setting, a development that comes as governments are relaxing regulations on experiments involving psychedelic drugs, like ketamine and psilocybin.

In 2018, for instance, a team of psychologists conducted the first randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of ayahuasca. The results, published in the journal Psychological Medicine, indicated that ayahuasca could, in fact, be effective in alleviating hard-to-treat depression.

In the new study, published in Frontiers in Pharmacology on November 19, the researchers wanted to test whether the drug had similar effects on reducing suicidality — one's tendency to think about, show risk of, or plan suicide.

"Suicide is one of the leading causes of death, accounting for nearly 1,000,000 deaths each year," study author Richard Zeifman, a Ph.D. student in Clinical Psychology at Ryerson University, told PsyPost. Zeifman added:

"Current interventions for suicidality have important limitations, which means there is a need for developing and identifying novel interventions for suicidality. Given this need, as well as research indicating that ayahuasca shows promise as an intervention for various mental health concerns (e.g., depression), we were interested in exploring whether the positive therapeutic effects of ayahuasca extended to suicidality."

The team recruited 29 participants — all of whom had major depressive disorder (MDD) and had never tried psychedelic drugs — to ingest either ayahuasca or a placebo in a dimly lit room as they listened to a predetermined playlist of music. Then, suicidality among the participants was measured by a psychiatrist for a week after the ayahuasca session.

The results were mixed. Compared to the placebo group, the participants who took ayahuasca showed less suicidality at all points during the week after the session. However, the differences weren't quite strong enough to be statistically significant. One explanation for the ambiguous results, besides the possibility that ayahuasca might not reduce suicidality, is that the team's statistical analysis wasn't able to detect significant effects — possibly because the sample size was too small.

In any case, the researchers said the findings suggest that ayahuasca shows "promise as a fast-acting and innovative intervention for suicidality."

"Furthermore, within the ayahuasca group, we found large effect sizes for decreases in suicidality at all time points," the researchers wrote. "These findings are in line with past research on the impact of psilocybin on suicidality and longitudinal research indicating that lifetime use of psychedelics is associated with reduced levels of suicidality and decreased risk of becoming suicidal."

The authors stressed that their results are preliminary, and that further research is needed before ayahuasca can be considered as a standardized suicide intervention.

It's worth noting the potential dangers of ayahuasca: Although anecdotal evidence suggests that ayahuasca might help people such as veterans reduce depression and symptoms of PTSD, there have also been cases of people committing suicide or experiencing mental health problems after taking ayahuasca.

A 'thirst for wholeness'

But it's possible these problems stem from people using the drug irresponsibly, as Rev. Dr. Jessica Rochester, founder of Céu do Montreal, a Canadian church that uses ayahuasca in spiritual ceremonies, told the Montreal Gazette.

"What has been happening is something called ayahuasca tourism. Unfortunately, with the world of the internet and people posting things saying, 'I went here once and healed my whole life,' (ayahuasca) has been sensationalized."

"On the other side, there have been tragic accidents where people either met death or caused harm. Our condolences go out to the individuals, families and friends for their losses, which would have been preventable if people would have taken simple precautions."

Rochester said ayahuasca improved her life.

"A lot of my experiences contributed to my understanding of myself, and of reality," she said. "I was simply following what my heart called me into. I can't say I was looking for anything in particular, but I like what Carl Jung wrote to Bill Wilson about a 'thirst for wholeness.'

"It's what's driving Western civilization, and is the cornerstone of a lot of my early academic work and my work as a health and wellness counsellor, which I have been for years."

  • In "Cautionary Tales," economist Tim Harford explores why humans are so susceptible to con artists.
  • In the podcast's first episode, Harford uses a famed oil tanker spill to highlight how important it is to admit mistakes.
  • Future episodes compare the Oracle at Delphi with computer algorithms and a famous awards show messing up the envelopes.

Humans are susceptible to cons. We're even more likely to fall for larger-than-life personalities. This isn't me writing about the vague "other humans" out there, the ones that you and I (wink, wink) know exist but would never fall victim to. As economist and journalist, Tim Harford — the author of the bestselling book, The Undercover Economist recently told me, the con is "baked into" human nature.

Yet, as he explores in his excellent new podcast, "Cautionary Tales," we can learn from past mistakes. Take a few deep breaths, count to 10, make better decisions — decisions, he points out on his podcast, that can save lives. We can better educate ourselves to learn about things we think we know about but actually do not.

Part of Pushkin Industries, the company co-founded by Malcolm Gladwell and Jacob Weisberg, Harford joins Gladwell and Michael Lewis for a series that explores the meaning behind both historical and modern-day events. In the debut episode, Harford discusses the tragic Torrey Canyon reef crash in 1967, which dumped 120,000 short tons of crude oil into the waters near Cornwall. The captain's inability to change course is, in itself, a lesson about the value of admitting mistakes and putting our new-found knowledge into action.

In episode two, we hear the story of Wilhelm Voigt, a Berlin native that isn't a captain but played one in society, an incredible story that shows us the depths of our beliefs in powerful con men. Harford discusses the political consequences of such cons during our interview. I'm sure you can guess where that conversation ends up.

As with Revisionist History and Against the Rules, "Cautionary Tales" is a welcome addition to podcasting. Humans might fall for cons and be unwilling to own up to mistakes, but we're also animals with a deep love for storytelling. Harford excels at that medium, both in writing and narration. The podcast is a pleasure to listen to and, bonus, you might just learn something along the way.

A powerful way to unleash your natural creativity | Tim Harford

Derek: Your new podcast is on Pushkin, which has this vibe of radio from a century ago. It's not just people talking; there's music, sound effects, and acting involved. Why did you go that route with "Cautionary Tales"?

Tim: One of the things that quickly became clear as I was looking at the stories that I wanted to tell is that very often these are stories where we don't have tape. We don't have a lot of archival footage. Very often there was nobody there when it happened. The journalist showed up afterwards; in some cases—there's one story that's two and a half thousand years old—we don't have tapes.

What do you do? Well, you can do the usual thing, which is to put an expert in an arm chair and ask him or her to explain what happened. We wanted to do something different. These little historical reenactments are like fresh herbs and spices throughout the podcast. These little scenes include a very different way to access a story that you wouldn't have another way to tell.

Derek: Your show is billed as "the science behind what happens." There has long been a replication problem in science. I know you mostly deal with the social sciences, but what was your training in science and why did you choose what you chose when approaching a topic?

Tim: It's a very good point because of the replication crisis—I think crisis is the right word. One of the issues is people looking for the perfectly counter-intuitive results, the thing that's just weird enough to be surprising and yet not so weird that you completely dismiss it. There's a lot of psychology published that has been filtered through that medium. I'm coming at it from a slightly different angle.

Rather than the coolest new study that might surprise you, I'm saying, "This thing happened, this oil tanker hit the rocks or this economist was the most famous economist in the world and he went bankrupt or they gave the Oscar to the wrong movie." Start with that story and then say, "What is it that social scientists can tell us about that story? What are the explanations?" Very often you find there's more than one explanation. There's usually no single cause. Then the question is: What explains it? What do the people who have thought hard about this sort of thing make of these accidents?

I talk about Milgram's experiments, but I try to remind people that a lot of the experiments that he did were not reported. These are very famous electric shock and obedience experiments. I'm trying to pick that apart and think about what modern psychologists now make of those experiments of what they think those experiments really tell us—to not to be uncritical in the way that I think about these studies.

Derek: I've read that study in many different contexts. The way you frame it about being an example not of obedience, but of a willingness to admit our mistakes, is really important. Why are we so unwilling to admit when we're wrong?

Tim: That's a big question. In some cases it's a social thing. In politics, for example, you don't want to admit that you're wrong because you're conceding ground to the other side and you don't want to lose faith socially. You don't want to lose political advantage. In other cases, you personally have committed so much to a particular viewpoint that it becomes extraordinarily painful to face up to the error.

This is the old idea of cognitive dissonance, which I explore in an episode about John Maynard Keynes and Irving Fisher, two great economists and their forecasting. Long story short, both are geniuses; both get really into stock market investing. One goes bankrupt; one dies a millionaire. What explains the differences?

One of them is willing to admit he made a mistake and one is not. Irving Fisher is more exposed. He's more publicly committed. He's going to lose face socially. But he's also too deep in debt to admit "I'm getting this wrong, I need to change direction." It's more painful to the sense of who he is, which the guy who doesn't make mistakes.

There's a third problem, which is something I emphasized in Adapt: We didn't know we made a mistake. No one ever tells you that you made a mistake; no one ever gives you the feedback. That's a very common problem.

Derek: Your podcast is supposed to help us learn from our mistakes. How do you help people actually learn what is in their best interest? Is that even possible?

Tim: This is something I explore in the final episode, which is about what happens when we just hand over our process to an authority figure or to a computer algorithm. What happens when we just let our GPS tell us where to go? One of the really interesting groups of studies that I talk about in that episode is what happens when you are forced to stop and think. These studies explore something called the illusion of explanatory depth.

In the initial study, they say, "How well do you reckon that you know how a flush laboratory works on a scale of zero to seven?" People will say, "Oh yeah, maybe six." Then the researchers say, "That's really interesting. Here's a pen and paper. Just explain to us in detail how it works." People get really stuck because they realize they don't know how it works. It was all a bit vague. They weren't lying to the researchers; they were lying to themselves. They felt that they understood this everyday object and they didn't.

The next study asked the same questions but about politics. It's by a different group of researchers. They said, "Tell us how a cap and trade system works. Tell us how the US will apply unilateral sanctions on Iran. How does that actually work?" People often feel they know pretty well what these policies are. Then again, when you ask them to explain, not to advocate, don't tell me whether it's a good idea, just tell me what it is. Again, people go, "Ah hmm. Uh hmm. I thought I knew but I don't know."

What's fascinating is that people's views about politics become more moderate. They think, quite reasonably, "Maybe my previous view that I was willing to die in a ditch to defend cap and trade or to prevent cap and trade, maybe that view that I thought was super important, maybe I shouldn't hold that view so strongly anymore given that I didn't really understand what it is that I'm talking about."

Not in every Cautionary Tale, but it comes up again and again, is that if you can calm down and slow down, whatever terrible thing happened wouldn't have happened if somebody had been able to count to 10 and think about what was going on.

Derek: When I was listening to episode two, I was reminded of a story growing up. There was a sporting goods chain called Herman's. Two men walked in, went to the back of the store, and grabbed a canoe. They put it over their heads and walked out of the store. It took 20 minutes for anyone to realize that they stole it.

Tim: Because they just walked right out as if they had bought it.

Derek: You say the judge, at the end of "The Captain of Köpenick," goes down and shakes Voigt's hand even though he admitted his crime and was a con man. What do we learn from that?

Tim: We're tremendously subjected to appearances. I wish I had a silver bullet for that one, some pill you could take that would cure us of that. I talk about the fact that just being tall is tremendously advantageous if you're running for political office.

Tim Harford: What Prison Camps Can Teach You About the Economy

Derek: I'm six-three, so I appreciated that.

Tim: Yeah, me too. As far as presidents go, that's not that tall. When you look at it, it's like they're picking a basketball team. It's a myth that the taller candidate always wins, but it definitely seems to be an advantage. The example of appearances matching the eye that I just can't get my head around is the adverts where the guy says, "I'm not a doctor, I just play one on TV," as though it's the most natural thing in the world. And it clearly works! That that advert ran for a long time is absolutely astonishing.

Even this particular con man, Wilhelm Voigt, would not have said, "I'm not actually a military captain. I'm just wearing the uniform." Of course, I can't help but think of a certain president who's most famous for playing a successful business man on TV. He's famous for acting as a businessman. It makes a huge difference to how we perceive the world.

Derek: Do we ever get over that? Is that something we can teach out of ourselves?

Tim: I have never seen a piece of research that says there is a cure for that. That is why, for example, blind recruitment processes and blind audition processes are so powerful. Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse studied what happens when the great American orchestras switched to blind auditions. They thought they were doing it to prevent discrimination against particular students who have powerful teachers; they didn't only want the "in crowd" to be recruited. They put up screens so you wouldn't know who was playing. Surprise, surprise, suddenly a load of women who previously wouldn't thought to be good enough were being recruited.

It's not enough to just tell people, "You shouldn't discriminate against women. Hey, don't be too impressed by uniforms. Treat people who don't look attractive the same way as you treat attractive people." You can tell people that, but I'm not sure it makes a great deal of difference. We can, again, slow down, have a think, and ask ourselves, "Am I overweighting this person's appearance? Am I favoring this person for president because they they look presidential rather than this other person who doesn't seem to look like what I imagined the president to look like?"

I don't think there is an easy cure for that. That's heavily baked in human nature. It's simpler with con artists. If you can slow them down and slow yourself down enough, you can usually spot the con. With a more subtle influence, like who we want to run our companies and who we want to run our country, appearances are always going to matter.


Stay in touch with Derek on Twitter and Facebook.

  • A NASA study reveals new dangers to the human body in space.
  • The absence of gravity caused changes in people's blood flows.
  • Some had blood going in reverse while others developed clots.

Humanity's expansion into space is both a hopeful and risky endeavor. A new study from NASA identified a new danger – low gravity can make blood flow stop and actually go in reverse in some astronauts.

The condition particularly applied to people's upper bodies. What its implications are for long-term health is still being studied but it appears to join the other space afflictions that we already know about, which include loss of mass and increased brittleness of bones.

The study arrived at this conclusion by looking at data from 11 astronauts (nine men, two women) who spent an average of six months each on the International Space Station.

Ultrasound assessments revealed that by around the 50th day into the mission, seven members of the crew had blood in their internal jugular vein stop flowing or even start going in reverse. This vein is a major blood vessel going down the side of the neck. Its function is to collect blood from the brain, neck and face.

One of the astronauts also developed a clot in the vein while still in flight, while another was found to have a partial clot upon coming back to Earth.

Having your blood flow in reverse definitely doesn't sound appealing and the discovery raises additional alarms about the dangers of long-term space travel.

Michael Stenger, the study's senior author, also a manager of the Cardiovascular and Vision Laboratory at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, called the finding "unexpected".

"We did not expect to see stasis and reverse flow," told Stenger to NBC News. "That is very abnormal. On Earth, you would immediately suspect a massive blockage or a tumor or something like that."

Stenger attributes the issue to the absence of gravity, pointing to years worth of observations of physiological changes in astronauts.

"This is why some astronauts get puffy faces, because there's no gravity to pull down those fluids circulating in the upper body," explained Stenger. "You'll sometimes also see veins popping out in the neck, or in the head — which you can see with bald astronauts, in particular."

He pointed to stopped blood flow as probably the most worrisome aspect of the discovery, saying that this results in dangerous blood clots.

99.99% of species go extinct. What is humanity’s future?

While the research is concerning, it can be seen more as an opportunity to anticipate the risks and develop new treatments, say the scientists.

Check out the study "Assessment of Jugular Venous Blood Flow Stasis and Thrombosis During Spaceflight" In the medical journal Jama Network Open (from the American Medical Association).

  • Tragedies at NASA, such as Challenger and Columbia disasters, have impeded the organization from taking risks, critics say. Indeed, in terms of PR, these tragedies were particularly baleful.
  • Although NASA was once a contractor, its staff spearheading missions, today they are more a client. SpaceX is basically selling NASA a ride to the ISS.
  • Essentially, NASA has put the risk on private companies — if anything bad happens, it's on SpaceX, for example. This switch may better further space colonization goals, though, because the private sector has more flexibility, in terms of how business is conducted. Also, NASA, as a national entity, avoids the pall of a possible disaster.