Willy Evans: Has he followed the argument to its natural if bitter end? Is the judge who gave the Feds an escape hatch as brave as Napolitano suggests? Is he?
Agreed! I cannot think of anyone more necessary and qualified to defend the Liberty of the United States through its Constitution in this day and age than Judge Napolitano.
Trump is not governed by reason or logic, and I would speculate that he was not put in office by the American people, like every other president I believe we all agree that Napolitano is an admirable man, but Supreme court justices are not. By their very nature they are immoral, and believing that they have the final say like any other judge. State your argument to the contrary, please.
I used to do research in the Albemarle county (Va.) courthouse. The archives have documents and deeds signed by Thona Jefferson. Looking at his ink signature was very moving to me.
The honorable Judge might have missed a certain point about the history of the Bill of Rights. Congress did draft 12 amendments, but it was not congress that whittled them down to 10. Congress send sent a proposed 12 amendments to the states as part of the Article 5 process. And it was the states that approved of only 10 of those proposed amendments and rejected two of the first 12. Why did it go to the states for their approval? How did they have the power to approve or disprove any proposed amendments? Because the states were still sovereign as the first day they each claimed it when the seceded from Great Britain and reasserted their sovereignty in Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation where it said, "the states retained their sovereignty". And that sovereignty was not surrendered by the US constitution. Article 7 demonstrates who were the sovereigns in approving the constitution and Article 5 proves that they did not surrender it either. The states are still sovereign.
Much as I admire Judge Napolitan's character and commitment to liberty, I'll defer to Lysander Spooner here: he said (paraphrasing) that either the Constitution was unable to prevent the growth of the Leviathan State, or it was intended to make such a State possible, therefore it is a big fat negative for the average American. I'm with the Anti-Federalists here who warned correctly of these excesses and corresponding usurpation of Americans' inherent liberties and power...guys like Patrick Henry, who wanted no part of Al Hamilton's successful coup d'etat because he 'smelt a rat.' Spot on, Patrick, you and the Anti-Federalists were correct to be suspicious; we'd be better off ditching this document that's encouraged this cronyist, corporatist State Americans have had inflicted upon them, renewing the Articles of Confederation, and going carefully from there, using the BoR and the nonaggression principle as guidance.
Glenn Horowitz: Glenn Beck put together a simplified version of the Federalist Papers lauding their terrible importance to the problems of the Republic today. Interestingly there was no mention of the Anti-Federalists---the very visionaries who foresaw the erosion of civil liberties under huge federal and state bureaucracies which themselves are under the thumb of big monied interests. There is very little wrong with the Constitution, only the failure (beginning with the Alien and Sedition Act) to actually follow it in a nation where freedom means not an inner quality essential to the pursuit of happiness, but the ungoverned pursuit of wealth, "a sordid boon." JWC
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is and determined by what THEY say it means. Given that decisions are most often determined by a single vote, there is not much consensus.
Notice FREEDOM OF SPEECH WAS THE FIRST RIGHT we were given- natural law - it cannot be taken. In light of Christmas week sneak of a NEW MINISTRY OF TRUTH DEPARTMENT put into the NDAA , I believe it is perfect time for this talk-
When I tell someone that the US constitution means what it says I get this type of response: "the constitution cannot be taken literally because you can not determine exactly what it means without someone like the USSC court to interpret its meaning". Which is their way to justify twisting the interpretation of the constitution in order to justify government infringement. The problem with that argument is that they are expressing a need for interpretation, and are not proving that constitution grants interpretive power to the USSC. Regardless if they believe that it is a necessity to interpret the constitution, they still do not have constitutional authority to do so without a new constitutional amendment. Granted the USSC gave itself interpretive power anyways, but that does not mean that they got constitutional authority to do so. Their interpretive power is not justified.
graphics hahahahaha the person in the pic gave a lecture in front of people .. that paid to attend, and they are putting this on here for free and you're complaining .. are you hodor ?
The judge should have kept her intentions under her hat instead of giving the government the opportunity to back up and go on using it! Why, I wonder, did she do that--essentially warn the criminals--and was she as courageous as Napolitano says she is? Sometimes it seems that Napolitano stops a bit before he gets to the place where the argument leads, eh?
If you read the first amendment carefully it does not protect the right to deny the Holocaust or to promote sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia or nationalism but it does protect the right to deny the Armenian and Ukrainian genocides.
The Judge is a national treasure
He's amazing.
Willy Evans:
Has he followed the argument to its natural if bitter end? Is the judge who gave the Feds an escape hatch as brave as Napolitano suggests? Is he?
Needs to be on the Supreme Court!
Brilliantly simply, eloquently given!
That was so good and so clearly laid out . He shoulfd be on the Supreme Court.
Trump should make Napolitano a Supreme Court Justice.
Agreed! I cannot think of anyone more necessary and qualified to defend the Liberty of the United States through its Constitution in this day and age than Judge Napolitano.
Agree
Making Napolitano a Supreme Court Justice would prove the others legal idiots. That would be special but would undermine the validity of the court. Such a debasement would not sit well with Napolitano.
Since the loss of Scalia, a poorer group jurists never sat on the same bench in all of history. Their work is so substandard they should never be paid. Their claim to be jurists is plain fraud upon the People. ©2016
All Libertarians agree that Napolitano should be Chief Justice, but then would he be free to speak out as he does?
Trump is not governed by reason or logic, and I would speculate that he was not put in office by the American people, like every other president
I believe we all agree that Napolitano is an admirable man, but Supreme court justices are not. By their very nature they are immoral, and believing that they have the final say like any other judge.
State your argument to the contrary, please.
Judge MUST be the next Supreme Court Justice and or the US Attorney General
Absolutely Brilliant!
I would love to see this as a lecture on TV
Hope they upload more. Particularly interested on Judge Nap's opinion on the commerce clause which is one of the most intrusive in day-to-day life.
I have rest respect for this Judge!
All law abiding citizens should prioritize the 1st & 2nd Amendment in their lives.
Andrew Napolitano is a fundamentally good man.
His best talk yet.
Napolitano never gave a bad talk nor has he written a bad piece, but puts it all out as questions... why not just say it?
Napolitano for SCOTUS!
Thank You
I used to do research in the Albemarle county (Va.) courthouse. The archives have documents and deeds signed by Thona Jefferson. Looking at his ink signature was very moving to me.
thank you
The honorable Judge might have missed a certain point about the history of the Bill of Rights.
Congress did draft 12 amendments, but it was not congress that whittled them down to 10.
Congress send sent a proposed 12 amendments to the states as part of the Article 5 process.
And it was the states that approved of only 10 of those proposed amendments and
rejected two of the first 12.
Why did it go to the states for their approval?
How did they have the power to approve or disprove any proposed amendments?
Because the states were still sovereign as the first day they each claimed it when the seceded from Great Britain
and reasserted their sovereignty in Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation where it said,
"the states retained their sovereignty".
And that sovereignty was not surrendered by the US constitution.
Article 7 demonstrates who were the sovereigns in approving the constitution and
Article 5 proves that they did not surrender it either.
The states are still sovereign.
yes he is. he is from my home state and county NJ.☆♡
I wish Trump would nominate him to the US Supreme Court.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
I LOVE Nappy's videos more than I love his audio....:P
He should replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Much as I admire Judge Napolitan's character and commitment to liberty, I'll defer to Lysander Spooner here: he said (paraphrasing) that either the Constitution was unable to prevent the growth of the Leviathan State, or it was intended to make such a State possible, therefore it is a big fat negative for the average American.
I'm with the Anti-Federalists here who warned correctly of these excesses and corresponding usurpation of Americans' inherent liberties and power...guys like Patrick Henry, who wanted no part of Al Hamilton's successful coup d'etat because he 'smelt a rat.'
Spot on, Patrick, you and the Anti-Federalists were correct to be suspicious; we'd be better off ditching this document that's encouraged this cronyist, corporatist State Americans have had inflicted upon them, renewing the Articles of Confederation, and going carefully from there, using the BoR and the nonaggression principle as guidance.
Ergo, no contracts are valid because of lack of consensus.
Glenn Horowitz:
Glenn Beck put together a simplified version of the Federalist Papers lauding their terrible importance to the problems of the Republic today.
Interestingly there was no mention of the Anti-Federalists---the very visionaries who foresaw the erosion of civil liberties under huge federal and state bureaucracies which themselves are under the thumb of big monied interests.
There is very little wrong with the Constitution, only the failure (beginning with the Alien and Sedition Act) to actually follow it in a nation where freedom means not an inner quality essential to the pursuit of happiness, but the ungoverned pursuit of wealth, "a sordid boon." JWC
Need to call a constitutional convention. 35 states.
Imagine if every professor had the intelligence and chutzpah of Judge Nap.
I love you fine sir !!!!!!
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is and determined by what THEY say it means. Given that decisions are most often determined by a single vote, there is not much consensus.
32:49
Two FBI officers walk in to a library in bridgeport connecticut...
It doesn't end well
Notice FREEDOM OF SPEECH WAS THE FIRST RIGHT we were given- natural law - it cannot be taken.
In light of Christmas week sneak of a NEW MINISTRY OF TRUTH DEPARTMENT put into the NDAA , I believe it is perfect time for this talk-
Be attentive to this.
I wish the judge would take a cabinet position. Attorney General would be a great fit.
how do we get rid of the Patriot Act
When I tell someone that the US constitution means what it says I get this type of response: "the constitution cannot be taken literally because you can not determine exactly what it means without someone like the USSC court to interpret its meaning". Which is their way to justify twisting the interpretation of the constitution in order to justify government infringement. The problem with that argument is that they are expressing a need for interpretation, and are not proving that constitution grants interpretive power to the USSC. Regardless if they believe that it is a necessity to interpret the constitution, they still do not have constitutional authority to do so without a new constitutional amendment. Granted the USSC gave itself interpretive power anyways, but that does not mean that they got constitutional authority to do so. Their interpretive power is not justified.
Can you file charges on her please. I'm broke😉
Why was this not a video? Because of Fox?
Only MisesU attendees get to see the NAP. We are not worthy.
Anarchy Seeds
Well, it was certainly worth listening to. But I would have liked to have seen the graphics.
audio is enouth...enjoy
graphics hahahahaha the person in the pic gave a lecture in front of people .. that paid to attend, and they are putting this on here for free and you're complaining .. are you hodor ?
*****
I'm not complaining, I'm just wondering why this one, out of the many Mises videos I view was audio only.
Trump should have freedom of speech,defending himself!
so is his opinion on 1868 good or bad in changing state right to abridge THE freedom of speech?
The judge should have kept her intentions under her hat instead of giving the government the opportunity to back up and go on using it!
Why, I wonder, did she do that--essentially warn the criminals--and was she as courageous as Napolitano says she is?
Sometimes it seems that Napolitano stops a bit before he gets to the place where the argument leads, eh?
Why you think they killed Scalia cause both you and him would be going hard and they would of been pissed or he knew something else
In light of the First Amendment are gag orders truly constitutional.
. 1st
"Congress shall make no law. " (what do you mean that's not it? ) :P
If you read the first amendment carefully it does not protect the right to deny the Holocaust or to promote sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia or nationalism but it does protect the right to deny the Armenian and Ukrainian genocides.
First amendment yes.
Capitalism=How much $ is your daughter?
Horrible