"The Second Amendment is not your right to shoot a deer. The Second Amendment is your right to shoot at the gov't if it is taken over by tyrants." Outstanding TRUTH rarely heard in these modern times. You Go Judge Nap!
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 already established the militias. The Second Amendment was written to address the fears that Congress would render the civilian militia nugatory and hand our liberty over to our enemies should they not fulfill the obligations to provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. Thereby removing or undermining the original right of the people to secure to themselves good governance.
I'm afraid that you are betraying the fact that you either have not read what the founders said about the 2nd Amendment or are ignoring it. First, it is also important to remember that in the founders mind, the states were absolutely sovereign except where they specifically granted authority via the Constitution to the Federal govt. Thus, the militia was also viewed as a means for the states to defend themselves from federal overreach. That said though, the founders that wrote on the subject made it quite clear that they considered the individual right to keep and bare arms to be a natural right for each person.
I finally found something where I disagree with the Judge! The Judge is absolutely wrong about the use of the atomic bombs in WWII. Dropping those 2 bombs was, without a doubt, the most humane act of WWII. Fortunately the Emperor of Japan did not know that we did not have any more of those bombs. Hirohito overruled his political and military leaders and personally directed his country to surrender. It was that proclamation by the Emperor that stopped what would have been close to an entire racial genocide. As an aside, as much as I despised MacArthur, I believe he understood the above and thus display great respect to Hirohito. In doing that and in general respecting the Japanese and Japanese culture performed one of the few 'nation building' successes in human history. Since WWII Japan has been one of the truly great nations of the world.
god bless the judge always defending freedom we need more people like him if we want to restore the republic and off course institutions like the mises institute
Outstanding lecture from the Judge. We are in dire need of more Napolitanos as law school professors and legal scholars, he's the best. The best thing he said: "Who the hell wants to be with O'Reilly on a Friday night?" But crushing FDR, Lincoln and calling out Madison and Reagan for the labito dominandi was great as well. Hammer those paradigms, Judge!
My gratitude goes out to misemedia for this really outstanding and revelatory address.As a non-American I had but little understanding or knowledge of the US constitution and or its implementation down the ages.
This man is in my eyes, the greatest American of modern times. He should be our President. What a wonderful world it would be. DINAH SPENCER He should be our President. Hmm, write in!
I like the fact that he reference both because as a Catholic libertarian it is important to hear that. Also alot of conservatives who are religious like to hear that too. And I agree completely that Republicans don't mean it when they say things like the right to life, liberty, and property. Also by history, the Catholics helped to bring the natural law tradition to come to us today along with a good amount of economic thought too. Think School of Salamanca.
You know what Emperor Hirohito said after the nukes? "It appears the war has taken a turn not necessarily to our advantage" It's my personal biggest understatement of the 20th century
Mike Paulski Complete contrasting philosophies... Napolitano is a libertarian, laissez faire capitalist and Trump is a big government statist... Though it may be good way to offset the disaster that a Trump presidency would be
John Galt Trump has rolled back more government regulation and taxation than any president in the modern era.... Really the only place they differ is on tariffs. He also appointed a Justice many consider to be more conservative/originalist than Scalia.
Liberty was often thought of the right to get off a ship. like field trips in high school. freedom is a often thought of a tight belt you can't breath. rights is recognizing the constraints allowing you to have freedom and liberty. recognizing i don't have a job was not only responsibility for a union contract to uphold but the reality of not having one exercised is allowing the mistakes of overlooking such rights for the sacrifice of knowing real freedom and liberty.
"How did N not know about Jefferson's brush with Islamic doctrine and immediately took the US to its first war abroad?" Perhaps because the judge was talking about unjust, undeclared or otherwise contrived wars and not about the one authorized by congress in 1801, before Jefferson took office. History is a wonderful thing.
Judge Napolitano should add to his "talking the talk" the "walking the walk" by suing the federal government and challenge these unconstitutional laws all the way to the Supreme Court and pay for this litigation with his "speaking revenue".
I'm am perplexed as to how it is there are people like Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano and we still end up with presidents that have no interest in the Constitution. How does this happen?
people who subsist entirely by owning and managing the means of production exist, and people who subsist entirely by selling their labour power to the former people also exist
Judge Nap: The single greatest thinker, of our time, for individual freedom & Govmt. restraint !!! Thomas Jefferson is unrivaled, but Nap is the closest to him !
Why can't the federal government set limits on catches of Shrimp in the sea? No one fisherman is aware of what the entire industry is doing, nor are they particularly concerned with the long term health of the shrimp population. Overfishing has decimated all kinds of species of fish. Just look at the records of fishing in the gulf of Mexico, the record catches have gotten and smaller, the records of individual fishes caught has decreased over time, because all the big fish have been killed off.
All wars since the end of WW2 (when the US nuked Japan in order to intimidate Russia) have been waged in the name of expanding markets globally (as capitalism requires) and ensuring an alternative economic system does not develop because the property based market system depends on both market expansion and a lack of choice to take part in property based market relations. Do any of you know what this means?
hence: "natural rights" are really just a codification of preferences for certain permutations of reality over others, and like all preferences are subjective
Rights are those things for which no government permission could change. To be a right it most not create an obligation on another. For example....you have a right to speak, you do not have a right to be heard. You have a right to self defense. You do not have a right to be defended.
Although Japan had already engaged in a peace negotiation and the sticking point (the continued status of the Emperor after the surrender) was actually conceded by the US AFTER the Atomic bombs.
A Godless Nation cannot remain free. "Those who will not be ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." (William Penn) "Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty." (2nd Corinthians 3:17) The Bible is the cornerstone of our Constitution.
Natural laws are endowed to us by our creator at birth and everyone has them and you are free to express them as you wish in your life. However, these natural laws can be suppressed (note suppressed and not fully stopped) by punishing you for expressing them. So in my mind these laws exist. They however are not followed by out of control government and are suppressed so as to make us good little slaves. Also in Napolitanos immutable reference he means that these natural laws remain unchanged.
With only the insight that we can have as outsiders, and assuming everything else went the way it did... maybe. What if we pulled out at that point? At what point does defense stop being defense and become aggression? Just questions to ponder, it is certainly not as cut and dry as the number of estimated dead.
i have an arbitrary right to my life thanks to living in a society which places emphasis on freedom, equality under the law etc. i do not have a natural right to life.
@@kristinas490 this is from an argument from 8 years ago (TH-cam changed how comments work so the replies are disjointed) but I think this was a debate about natural rights, which I don't think exist. Our rights derive from socially constructed things like constitutions, which aren't natural.
The way 'Uncle Eric' put it is that there are discoverable principles on which human societies tend to operate. If my neighbors and I refrain from violating the equal liberty of others then our neighborhood will be in better shape economically and environmentally. If we don't our neighborhood will be in worse shape. just as ignoring the law of gravity when jumping out of an airplane without a parachute will have negative consequences
Well if we did not have natural rights or laws we would be absolutely bound to the law of the land no matter how harsh and we could not question it, however we have the ability to reason and can come to know that our natural rights are being infringed upon which usually leads us to form a more free society. Natural law and scientific law are a bit different as one deals with mechanics of the universe and the other with human morality and code of ethics.
I see there is more hero worship that patriotism here. Why would he be President and be limited on what he can do? As a citizen he has more power to speak out. The President has to be diplomatic and work with the parties. Nothing would change. The President was never supposed to set the agenda for the country, only enforce the laws.
I role my eyes to the bill of rights. But all rights are extensions of property rights, including the person themselves. We shouldn't have to rely on pieces of paper as if they were magical. But we should respect the intrinsic laws of personal property, in the same way we respect gravity. In attempting to violate it will always end badly. In short even the bill of rights is overly complicated.
Despite his appeals to a god I appreciate that Napolitano did not base the idea of human freedom solely on a deity, something I often hear from the republicans these days in ridiculous sound bytes. I think advocates of liberty would do so much better if they structured their ideas to appeal to skeptics; let the evidence, logic and reason speak for itself so you don't alienate someone with your appeals to the unprovable otherworldly.
Natural rights libertarians don't say "We want reality to be this way." They are not expressing preferences or describing what they want. What they say is that "Reality IS this way." That's not a description or expression of preferences. Preferences come into it insofar as they want natural rights to be respected. To assume that a 'right' has to be something that people actually respect is to assume positivism from the start. You can do that OR you can argue against NR, but not both.
>Natural laws are endowed to us by our creator at birth how do you figure that >However, these natural laws can be suppressed if it can be suppressed, it wasn't a natural law like gravity or the earth being round, it was something you preferred
i think you need to check the definition of a right. it's either a legal principle (which rothbardians reject) or it's an ethical imperative (which are subjective). an objective ethical imperative would fall victim to hume's guillotine (or it would rely on god)
Guys like Napolitano and Paul would turn the world over to despots. They make good points about civil liberties and the economy but they are disasters on foreign policy.
I am basing my research off human history of course, for the very large part humans have desired and improved the amount of freedom in their lives over the course of oppression. So why did fascism whither away? Is it not because humans desire to be more free and liberalism increased their freedoms?
This man needs to be chief justice of the supreme court. IMO
See my c3.
See my comments.
@@dennishickey7194”see my comments” there’s 300 comments on here lmao nobody cares to go find your comment
@@Slippindisc So don't bother.
Judge Napolitano is absolutely great man.
"The Second Amendment is not your right to shoot a deer. The Second
Amendment is your right to shoot at the gov't if it is taken over by tyrants."
Outstanding TRUTH rarely heard in these modern times.
You Go Judge Nap!
The Napster was lying. He knew 2d A. was intended only to guarentee state militias.
rd264 the right to bear arms is a natural right with long standing (magna carta) precedence in western common law. He is 100% correct in his comment
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 already established the militias. The Second Amendment was written to address the fears that Congress would render the civilian militia nugatory and hand our liberty over to our enemies should they not fulfill the obligations to provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. Thereby removing or undermining the original right of the people to secure to themselves good governance.
I'm afraid that you are betraying the fact that you either have not read what the founders said about the 2nd Amendment or are ignoring it. First, it is also important to remember that in the founders mind, the states were absolutely sovereign except where they specifically granted authority via the Constitution to the Federal govt. Thus, the militia was also viewed as a means for the states to defend themselves from federal overreach. That said though, the founders that wrote on the subject made it quite clear that they considered the individual right to keep and bare arms to be a natural right for each person.
I finally found something where I disagree with the Judge! The Judge is absolutely wrong about the use of the atomic bombs in WWII. Dropping those 2 bombs was, without a doubt, the most humane act of WWII. Fortunately the Emperor of Japan did not know that we did not have any more of those bombs. Hirohito overruled his political and military leaders and personally directed his country to surrender. It was that proclamation by the Emperor that stopped what would have been close to an entire racial genocide.
As an aside, as much as I despised MacArthur, I believe he understood the above and thus display great respect to Hirohito. In doing that and in general respecting the Japanese and Japanese culture performed one of the few 'nation building' successes in human history. Since WWII Japan has been one of the truly great nations of the world.
Judge Napolitano, you may well be the healthiest person in this country; we really appreciate you.
Absolutely amazing-no notes, no teleprompter, just a man talking truthfully, knowledgeably, a freeman!
See my comments.
god bless the judge always defending freedom we need more people like him if we want to restore the republic and off course institutions like the mises institute
See my comments.
This video should be mandatory viewing for every American.
Holy crap I'm learning more in the first 25 minutes than I have in 52 years. Love this guy
One of the best speeches ever spoken.
See my comments.
Outstanding lecture from the Judge. We are in dire need of more Napolitanos as law school professors and legal scholars, he's the best. The best thing he said: "Who the hell wants to be with O'Reilly on a Friday night?" But crushing FDR, Lincoln and calling out Madison and Reagan for the labito dominandi was great as well. Hammer those paradigms, Judge!
This should be mandatory viewing in every highschool across America.
He is so right.i feel we can only Pray for our Country.
The judge,is so helpful to our country,
The Judge never fails to please. Superb presentation!
See my comments.
We must not shrink from that responsibility
We must welcome it
Yes sir!!!
Judge Napolitano for the Supreme Court .
See my comments.
judge napolitano for supreme court.
See my comments.
My gratitude goes out to misemedia for this really outstanding and revelatory address.As a non-American I had but little understanding or knowledge of the US constitution and or its implementation down the ages.
See my comments
This man is in my eyes, the greatest American of modern times. He should be our President. What a wonderful world it would be. DINAH SPENCER He should be our President. Hmm, write in!
Ventura / Napolitano
See my comments.
See the young boy in the foreground when they stand to welcome Napolitano with his dad.Lucky boy,smart parent.
See my comments
I like the fact that he reference both because as a Catholic libertarian it is important to hear that. Also alot of conservatives who are religious like to hear that too. And I agree completely that Republicans don't mean it when they say things like the right to life, liberty, and property. Also by history, the Catholics helped to bring the natural law tradition to come to us today along with a good amount of economic thought too. Think School of Salamanca.
one of the best speeches ive ever heard
Judge you are the greatest!!
You know what Emperor Hirohito said after the nukes? "It appears the war has taken a turn not necessarily to our advantage"
It's my personal biggest understatement of the 20th century
A great speech from this most honorable human being.
See my comments
I love this Judge! You go Judge!
See my comments
Absolutely excellent lecture! I would (and will) share this with everyone I know!
See my comments.
Judge Napolitano for President..
How do we get this guy nominated for President.?
Donald trump for president, Andrew Napolitano for the supreme court.
bribe the democratic party
Mike Paulski Complete contrasting philosophies... Napolitano is a libertarian, laissez faire capitalist and Trump is a big government statist... Though it may be good way to offset the disaster that a Trump presidency would be
John Galt Trump has rolled back more government regulation and taxation than any president in the modern era....
Really the only place they differ is on tariffs. He also appointed a Justice many consider to be more conservative/originalist than Scalia.
See my comments
If I had the opportunity to pick one person and have them magically turn into a warm personal friend, it would be the Judge, or Dr. Thomas Woods.
See my comments
Liberty was often thought of the right to get off a ship. like field trips in high school. freedom is a often thought of a tight belt you can't breath. rights is recognizing the constraints allowing you to have freedom and liberty.
recognizing i don't have a job was not only responsibility for a union contract to uphold but the reality of not having one exercised is allowing the mistakes of overlooking such rights for the sacrifice of knowing real freedom and liberty.
Come for the amazingly insightful speech, stay for the fantastic O'Reilly story at 35:45
See my comments.
I agree with you. When I wrote the comment I was thinking in the sense of children at school as part of their curriculum but didn't write it that way.
GOAT judge in the USA.
See my comments
"How did N not know about Jefferson's brush with Islamic doctrine and immediately took the US to its first war abroad?"
Perhaps because the judge was talking about unjust, undeclared or otherwise contrived wars and not about the one authorized by congress in 1801, before Jefferson took office. History is a wonderful thing.
Napolitano for President!
love this!
I'm so glad to hear that the Good Judge agrees with Lysander Spooner.
See my comments.
Too bad there ain't a "LOVE" button. Love ya Judge.
See my comments
Judge Napolitano for President!
Judge Napolitano for President!
Lionel for VP!
i ask them for nothing & i would be thankful to get it!
Judge Napolitano should add to his "talking the talk" the "walking the walk" by suing the federal government and challenge these unconstitutional laws all the way to the Supreme Court and pay for this litigation with his "speaking revenue".
He is running for president 2016.
Are you sure he is running for pres?
+Joe Schmoe no he is not
dan schutz lol, yeah I know that now.
See my comments
I'm am perplexed as to how it is there are people like Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano and we still end up with presidents that have no interest in the Constitution. How does this happen?
The irony with that statement was covered in his speech about how no one is above changing the law in their own favor.
See my comments
people who subsist entirely by owning and managing the means of production exist, and people who subsist entirely by selling their labour power to the former people also exist
See my comments.
Judge Andrew Napolitano for Supreme Court
Thank You ! This was amazing.
See my c3.
Judge Nap:
The single greatest thinker, of our time, for individual freedom & Govmt. restraint !!!
Thomas Jefferson is unrivaled, but Nap is the closest to him !
I would pay to see the judge mediate and provide the questions for a presidential debate.
I m gonna buy his books,
His body of work.thamk be to our family ,god country
You provide the Evidence!
Even tho he's using his old material.... great speech
See my comments
THE judge!
bravo ... bravo...
Why can't the federal government set limits on catches of Shrimp in the sea? No one fisherman is aware of what the entire industry is doing, nor are they particularly concerned with the long term health of the shrimp population. Overfishing has decimated all kinds of species of fish. Just look at the records of fishing in the gulf of Mexico, the record catches have gotten and smaller, the records of individual fishes caught has decreased over time, because all the big fish have been killed off.
What is the point of a Constitution if, throughout history, every president and every Congress has not followed it?
See my comments
All wars since the end of WW2 (when the US nuked Japan in order to intimidate Russia) have been waged in the name of expanding markets globally (as capitalism requires) and ensuring an alternative economic system does not develop because the property based market system depends on both market expansion and a lack of choice to take part in property based market relations. Do any of you know what this means?
hence: "natural rights" are really just a codification of preferences for certain permutations of reality over others, and like all preferences are subjective
Rights are those things for which no government permission could change. To be a right it most not create an obligation on another. For example....you have a right to speak, you do not have a right to be heard. You have a right to self defense. You do not have a right to be defended.
Although Japan had already engaged in a peace negotiation and the sticking point (the continued status of the Emperor after the surrender) was actually conceded by the US AFTER the Atomic bombs.
Not only that, he looks like hes actually having a good time!
See my comments
A Godless Nation cannot remain free. "Those who will not be ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." (William Penn) "Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty." (2nd Corinthians 3:17) The Bible is the cornerstone of our Constitution.
See my comments
It's encouraging, 40+ thousand views............
I want Carson for president and Napolitano as the D.O.J
See my comments
Natural laws are endowed to us by our creator at birth and everyone has them and you are free to express them as you wish in your life. However, these natural laws can be suppressed (note suppressed and not fully stopped) by punishing you for expressing them. So in my mind these laws exist. They however are not followed by out of control government and are suppressed so as to make us good little slaves. Also in Napolitanos immutable reference he means that these natural laws remain unchanged.
Incredible video as usual by the Judge, but I did not like how he ignored the first question about Jefferson.
With only the insight that we can have as outsiders, and assuming everything else went the way it did... maybe. What if we pulled out at that point? At what point does defense stop being defense and become aggression? Just questions to ponder, it is certainly not as cut and dry as the number of estimated dead.
Hey this is a really excellent video, Peter
See my comments
Translation of CorruptedCommentator's "rebuttal" into Plain English:
"You didn't build that!"
But at least "CorruptedCommentator" knows what he is.
They are coming to get you Barbara ! You can hear them scream " ROOAAADSS ROAAAADS ROAAAAADS!!!"
i have an arbitrary right to my life thanks to living in a society which places emphasis on freedom, equality under the law etc. i do not have a natural right to life.
How is it arbitrary? You have the right to not be assaulted and/or murdered regardless if your neighbor observes this or not.
@@kristinas490 this is from an argument from 8 years ago (TH-cam changed how comments work so the replies are disjointed) but I think this was a debate about natural rights, which I don't think exist. Our rights derive from socially constructed things like constitutions, which aren't natural.
The way 'Uncle Eric' put it is that there are discoverable principles on which human societies tend to operate. If my neighbors and I refrain from violating the equal liberty of others then our neighborhood will be in better shape economically and environmentally. If we don't our neighborhood will be in worse shape.
just as ignoring the law of gravity when jumping out of an airplane without a parachute will have negative consequences
14:27 the best part
See my comments
He would make a great arbitrator in a stateless society.
Well if we did not have natural rights or laws we would be absolutely bound to the law of the land no matter how harsh and we could not question it, however we have the ability to reason and can come to know that our natural rights are being infringed upon which usually leads us to form a more free society.
Natural law and scientific law are a bit different as one deals with mechanics of the universe and the other with human morality and code of ethics.
Well said
Did you see the PBS documentry on drones?
I see there is more hero worship that patriotism here.
Why would he be President and be limited on what he can do? As a citizen he has more power to speak out. The President has to be diplomatic and work with the parties.
Nothing would change. The President was never supposed to set the agenda for the country, only enforce the laws.
Hope he can win the Libertarian nomination and get in the 2016 debates
I role my eyes to the bill of rights. But all rights are extensions of property rights, including the person themselves. We shouldn't have to rely on pieces of paper as if they were magical. But we should respect the intrinsic laws of personal property, in the same way we respect gravity. In attempting to violate it will always end badly. In short even the bill of rights is overly complicated.
Despite his appeals to a god I appreciate that Napolitano did not base the idea of human freedom solely on a deity, something I often hear from the republicans these days in ridiculous sound bytes. I think advocates of liberty would do so much better if they structured their ideas to appeal to skeptics; let the evidence, logic and reason speak for itself so you don't alienate someone with your appeals to the unprovable otherworldly.
A-Rod hit the pop up that Castillo dropped. Not Jeter
Natural rights libertarians don't say "We want reality to be this way." They are not expressing preferences or describing what they want. What they say is that "Reality IS this way." That's not a description or expression of preferences. Preferences come into it insofar as they want natural rights to be respected.
To assume that a 'right' has to be something that people actually respect is to assume positivism from the start. You can do that OR you can argue against NR, but not both.
Is his jacket too damn short or is this just some crazy style ?
What's with the intro music? Epic!
The Judge and Ron Paul are good at getting people into that idea though. It is a hard message to get smacked in the face with lol.
>Natural laws are endowed to us by our creator at birth
how do you figure that
>However, these natural laws can be suppressed
if it can be suppressed, it wasn't a natural law like gravity or the earth being round, it was something you preferred
rand was a novelist not a formal logician, i'm sure you can reproduce her idea in a few hundred words
i think you need to check the definition of a right. it's either a legal principle (which rothbardians reject) or it's an ethical imperative (which are subjective). an objective ethical imperative would fall victim to hume's guillotine (or it would rely on god)
Yes or no , they were called “founding fathers” because custom was to have many children, and they had at times many families for each of the fathers.
Where is this coming from? Where did I ever say freeloader? Stay on topic here.
what he is talking about 11(12)years ago,that is happening now.
To ask him on his Facebook page if he would consider becoming the next president,
That's what i done !
fyi, FB is for announcing trivia like what you fed your cat. President wannabees are handled in smoke filled rooms in DC and Wall St.
i would support him for the supreme court i would in fact put him in charge
We need to be in charge. See my comments
That or POTUS. I would be happy with him in either position
Guys like Napolitano and Paul would turn the world over to despots. They make good points about civil liberties and the economy but they are disasters on foreign policy.
How can you teach the truth if the word “father” has different meanings “
I am basing my research off human history of course, for the very large part humans have desired and improved the amount of freedom in their lives over the course of oppression.
So why did fascism whither away? Is it not because humans desire to be more free and liberalism increased their freedoms?
If insurance companies didn't have so many regulations the cost would go down with true competition, and not having to compete with freebies.
My town took our land and makes us pay taxes on it, that is bad but they never paid for the land - CLINTON MAINE