I could listen to the good judge all day. I had the honor of meeting him some years ago, and he is exactly the same genuine and gentle guy in person. We need more like him!
I don't like Judge Napolitano stance on abortion. He ascribes right to the unborn which undermines the right of he living. Fetuses's are unborn, and therefore have no rights.
yes they do have rights a clum of cells isn't a fetus its a human being if you're denying called it a human being and instead a fetus that not how biology works.
Bezlichnyy I think if people would mind their own business their wouldn’t be an abortion problem. I agree with you. I do think that if we raised our children to value life and be more responsible, it would be much less of an issue.
Napolitano was so formative in my understanding of law and politics in my teens, and over a decade later I still find him inspirational. Thank you so much for publishing this speech!
*I am an autodidact, and studied law for 6 years in the early 70s. I was completely outside of accepted legal thought, until I heard Napolitano speak. It's nice to know that even though I can do nothing about implementing my knowledge, at least I got it right.*
Those are absolutely two of the best and most concise explanations of the 2nd Amendment I’ve heard. Judge, please keep speaking and teaching as much as possible! I only hope it’s not too late to save our nation...
To gain insight into the constitution the federalist papers should be consulted... but to understand the Bill of Rights, the writings of the anti-federalists are a must!
Also the state ratification conventions gives insight into what the states believed they were getting into. They ratified with the understanding that they could leave at any time, Lincoln put an end to that idea though.
We aren’t dying. We have been let down by those we have elected to represent us and protect our rights. Instead they erase our rights to protect our health. I already have a doctor now i need a representative. Have you seen any?
@@sumatrican5990 I now understand why our representatives are trying to get rid of our doctors via socialism. Here, in Texas, we have a good senator, but sadly he's one of the very few good representatives left.
@@TXLionHeart Puerto Rican here. Former Bernie Sanders supporter here because his heart is clearly full of utmost compassion and fight for the plight of the American worker like a patriot from the 1930s fighting against monopoly corporations. But the radical left in 2020 has shown me that I was down the wrong path, and that while Bernie himself might be a figure of light and not one that seeks endless ego and power, if his ideologies came to fruition under his benevolent watch, they would immediately be abused by tyrants and used to rip away our freedoms. I have then since voted Libertarian in the 2020 election and don’t ever see myself going back. Tyranny observed in the COVID era almost has no comparison to anything I’ve seen in my life and I will not stand for it while I’m alive.
I absolutely love you I did not know who you were before today and that I regret but I have listened to three of your lectures today God bless you I love your mind I love the way you think I love your heart thank you for your Brilliance and insight you are awesome and amazing God bless you!!!!!!❤🕊🙏💋
I'm supporting Austin Petersen @AP4Liberty to become Senator from Missouri via my donations to his campaign and my endorsement of him. I believe the judge is right about our Constitution and I believe that Austin Petersen agrees with him. It would be a great improvement to this country if the judge's views became dominant.
If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin. Samuel Adams
If ever indeed - that time passed long long ago, for now money is the people's false God, and the government seems to exist in order to prevent true patriots from exercising the power to restrict it.
Such a brilliant mind, what are you doing not in the Supreme Court sir? May you Live very long and your hair unshaven in no black hole. Great work. Thank you
I'm basically a leftist (Well Northern European style Social Democrat), but I still think Napolitano makes convincing arguments and is 1000s of miles ahead of most political pontificators nowadays.
Well you're wrong. Napolitano is as stupid as his haircut. His argument are pure GARBAGE, since THE USA IS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE; just a UNION of them, like the UN or EU; with the exception that the PRINCIPAL SOVEREIGNS in each state, are the VOTERS; while governments are just their delegated SUBORDINATES. So the VOTERS in each state, can OVERRULE state and federal government by popular vote. FACT.
Jerome-G seriously ! considering the Judges philosophy and political believes being the polar opposite of the current political hegemony...nice thought but come on..
17:16 Judge Napolitano: "I would love be able to tax the Federal Reserve out of existence." How do you tax out of existence, something that has essentially been granted the authority to print dollars indefinitely? The sentiment is appreciated though.
what a catch 22. if you choose not to sell your wheat then you can be regulated for not participating in interstate commerce. if you sell your wheat only to those in your community where you can hand deliver it you can be regulated for not participating in interstate commerce. if you sell your wheat to anyone in your state due to various state laws and regulations you can be regulated for not participating in interstate commerce. and finally, if you sell your wheat to anyone in the country you can be regulated because you are participating in interstate commerce. if for no other reason than this, the federal government including the needs to be driven out of existence and started over. this is corruption and tyranny even the king could not have imagined. raze and replace
Illegal immigration and so called dreamers is where I extremely disagree with the Judge on. A nation has a Natural Right to make borders and to deny entry of NON CITIZENS! And to let the children of ILLEGALS to benefit from their illegal act is a dangerous and immoral.
*Believe it or not, there is a Supreme Court **_Dissenting_** opinon (which is off point, but published nonetheless), coming to the very same conclusion! It was published in the 80s, and is just waiting for some honest jurist to use it. Sooner rather than later I hope: our government is already so out of control, and so completely non-responsive to the people it supposedly "represents", that we have not long to go before tho whole house of cards collapses.*
@@measl Things progress as long as the monster can be fed. The monster never stops growing more powerful until it can no longer get what it needs to grow, or its parts are chopped off.
Thomas Jefferson. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.****
Yeah, that and 10 cents will get you a dime. READ FURTHER: _We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do._ So the USA is NOT a sovereign state. Only a UNION of them. THE SOUTH WAS LEGALLY RIGHT.
The Libertarian Party needs to focus on local/state/Congressional races ... especially local/state so they can build upon those victories and work into Congress where real change can occur. Congress can make the changes over the Presidential office.
13:46: "The STATES should decide what the Constitution means" Ok judge, is that by VOTE, or does each state decide for itself? And WHO, exactly are "THE STATES?" What PEOPLE are you talking about? FACT: 1. THE USA IS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE; but only a UNION of them like the UN or EU. That was established in 1776. And 2. the principal sovereign of each state, is its respective ELECTORATE, i.e. its VOTERS. That was established in 1787. THOSE are the facts everyone needs to know, before making any judgments about ANYTHING. Because that pertains to EVERYTHING in the world as we know it today.
The constitution is NOT a signed document and is therefore inadmissible in any common court of true law. The Fed was never signed into law nor 'legislation' by the states, yet it exists, regardless of your 'constitution'. All it does is give rights to some over others in Admiralty legislation and is unlawful in any true common court of 'law'. This is why pol's say it's only a piece of paper. I could write one on toilet paper and it doesn't make it lawful just because a bunch of lords voted for it hundreds of years ago.
Regarding "We the people" meaning "we the states", I believe one of the biggest atrocities and abominations ever performed by the rulers of men is the "Supreme" Court's ruling that corporations are fictional people. That ruling was well after the founding of the country so my point (or perhaps a question) is if there was even the remotest idea at the time of the drafting that there was some artifical entity such as "the state"? I think not, so "we the people" is more accurate. The "states" were not fictional people either.
I believe this misunderstands what legal personhood is (which is perhaps an unfortunate and misleading name for the concept). All it means is that an organization, being comprised of individuals who have rights owing to their humanity, itself has those same rights. So even though corporations aren't people and therefore don't have original rights, it is nevertheless illegal to steal from a corporation because the corporation is just an organization of individuals who do have original rights. To deny this would mean that two people could set up a charitable organization, and they would immediately lose all of their fundamental rights with regards to the property that they invest in it. A thief could loot their furniture and squat in their headquarters building and merely claim that he didn't steal from them, He took from their charitable organization, and the charitable organization has no rights. Similarly, states' rights does not imply that states have some kind of original rights in the way that individuals do. It merely means that states, as an organization that (allegedly) represents many individuals who do have rights, share those same rights.
I wish Napolitano would draft a constitution as he sees fit. After the dollar collapse I think many more people are going to be ready for one very big reset including a new constitution based on what we have learned over the last 250 years...
Representatives are those and and of the people, not the states, thusly being the beneficiary of the #Constitution if you actually know your rights and #Constitution is to be judged in your #American individual citizen favor, not the states... and the #CommerceClause 'INFRINGEMENTS' can be challenged by the #Constitution as where, what is a right can not be taken away and required a license and charged a fee for it.
I don't know Judge Napolitano--with all due respect--the description, 'Democratic Republican', seems to describe perfectly well the uniparty that we see manifesting its nature so clearly today.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. Lysander Spooner
You should listen to Jeff Deist podcast, with a rather bright young Libertarian who has formulated the "perfect" Constitution, that even a Anarcho-Capitalist would accede to. But one get's back to the original problem, and for which L. Spooner is most noted for in his own political works.
do you really expect a criminal to stop robbing you bc you put a piece of paper in his face? you have to bring the constitution to life, a daily struggle, pleasure and task. or it is YOU who is unfit to exist!
He is so smart.when he spoke about law on fox over laws on impeachment.AG barr went to head of fox asked them to remove him off TV for anyone wondering where he went.
The Constitution meaning is in the Federalist Papers, Letters written to NY. to get them to vote for the Constitution. The liberials ignore this, and gave rewritten the Constitution taking our freedom.
What kits are you talking about? Any parts needed to make a semi-automatic rifle into a select fire rifle, is already regulated by the NFA... and has been since 1986, and prior to that, since 1968 .
Actually, the "Bill of Rights" or "1st 10 Amendments" were drafted during the 700 years of Anglo Saxon and British History leading up to the ratification of the u.s. constitution. The Bill of Rights written into the first 10 amendments of the u.s. constitution are nothing new and were all derived from 1100 Charter, Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, and the like. Madison didn't draft these.
Now I wonder if the NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling that set the "text history and tradition" standard [regarding the second amendment] can be used to go after the abuses of the commerce clause?
26:45 Scalia wrote - and I paraphrase - “citizens shall have right to own, carry, and use the weapons of the *same caliber* as those owned by bad guys and government officials.” I am seeking some clarifications. Would that mean: The weapons could include atomic bomb? Military aircraft, missiles? Or government is not the same as individuals who are government officials? If not the same, does it mean same weapons that can be carried and used by the police, the military personnel, etc... did the founders understand this to include cannons and military ships, or did they understand it to be limited to something that can be “physically carried” with your arms without help of any thing or anyone else. Dies the “natural right to use” mean no justification needed? Any Tom, Dick, Harry, Ahmad, or Muhammad could decide that it his right to drop biggest bomb he can against any tyrannical official (in his judgement) and since it is his right, then he should not be prosecuted? After all when the founders and revolutionary army deployed their weapons- including cannons - against the British government (mostly not civilian officials but the military) they didn’t expect to get prosecuted under their constitution. So same should apply if Jefferson killed Adams. Thanks for any philosophical and constitutional perspective anyone can offer one way or other (or multiple perspectives).
This is a VERY bright individual...why can't he see that a government that gives itself power to act will only be answerable to itself? Cognitive dissonance is a hellova drug, I guess.
No. A clear majority in Congress and the courts are BAR members. The thirteenth never went away; what's necessary is enabling legislation and a statute to enforce. Congress won't pass the statute, so no enforcement.
The real problem with the Constitution is not knowing who has the responsibility to enforce it. Those in Government were granted their powers making them grantees. The grantors enforce what they granted. Who are the grantors is a good question. Look no further than the first three words for the answer. It (The Constitution) says, We the People.
We like to say that nothing made by man is perfect, but that's not true. There are many perfect things made by artists of all kinds from stories to visuals to furniture to homes to machines to meals. The issue with any constitution has always been its reliance on people to work within it exercising the extreme integrity to no abuse their rights granted under it. The Judge told the audience "We the people" should have instead said "We the states." IMO that is the Judge showing his technical leanings toward what would actually work better, as opposed to respect for Jefferson's passion that the individual is self ruled, and only the individual can give over their rights to their government, as opposed to the government taking them.
i pray for the judge that he will not meet the same fate as scalia. natural causes and no autopsy.... very convenient under the under the watch of someone who hated is stance on the 2nd!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've seen 2 of the judge's videos where he gives two different heights for James Madison, 4'8" and this video 4'10". Both are incorrect. Simple Google search reveals many sites giving Madison's height as 5' 4". Please, be consistent and accurate.
Because Google searches are ALWAYS more accurate than the experts, and NEVER repeat each other as fact despite presenting a suspiciously singular figure for an esoteric historical constant. Please don't be a snot-nose millennial who thinks Google makes him a genius.
Libertarian policy on immigration is Wall is 15th Century concept. Taco Curtain would be no more necessary on Southern border than on Northern, if we ended Drug War.
Libertarian view that immigration should be encouraged is flawed as it is oppositional to collective ownership the citizens have over their nation. The government has no legitimate power without consent of the governed to give away franchise of ownership of a nation no more than it has the right to give away shares of microsoft and google to its citizens. Its clear if you consider the nation as owned by the people rather than simply an area that citizens are residing in which imo makes the geography of a people meaningless.
In our nation based on "individualism", the citizens do not have a "collective" ownership of the nation. That would be parallel to anything from a cult in the So-Cal desert to the horrific communism of the entire world. We have individual ownership, and it is earned in the free market by any individual who wants to try the excitement of capitalism. The rest of your argument seems to support the need for a "separation of business and state", so the rest of us can compete in what is suppose to be "our" free market. Who does capitalism belong to, us or the government? What you are living through, is the take over of our capitalism, and your liberty to do business with each other,--and compete. Immigration should be encouraged, but with productive people who can add value to themselves in our free market. That is exactly why my Great Grand parents moved from Poland to the USA in the early 1900's. Boy, do I wish I could thank them.
No the USA is not directly owned by its citizens, but all of its territory is set aside to be available to its citizens first and foremost. I'm not sure what else you would call that but a form of collective citizen ownership. I really don't get how you got on the tangent about capitalism when I was tieing citizenship to collective property rights... If it wasn't 2 am after I just got back from the bar I'd try and figure out a way to tie in governmental representation being diminished by immigration as well. We either own the land, and thru our representation the government or it owns us and the land and can give it to whoever it wants. The reality leans towards the latter but I prefer the former. As for immigration, I'm generally not in favor of it beyond spouses and I really don't care about the talent lost as we have more than enough undeveloped talent in the USA, its just cheaper and easier to import it
You don't get it. EVERY law means, whatever the principal sovereign SAYS it means. And by failing to IDENTIFY the principal sovereign, he CONCEDES that it is the federal government. However in reality, the USA is NOT a sovereign state; but only a UNION of them like the UN or EU. And the principal sovereign of each state, is its respective ELECTORATE, i.e. its VOTERS. FACT.
The power to regulate commerce needs to be totally taken away from government in perpetuity. Including the power to issue and control currency. That may sound radical to some people but only because they are either ignorant of history or actually prefer theft by government.
Shall not be infringed to be the Supreme highest law of the land. no government nor single body or group shell have SE in the Second Amendment or any of the other amendments the true amendments of the original Constitution.
"Interesting, but there are sounder interpretations in the Heart of the Almighty, who invented it, and the overall 'We The People', are crucial to those things"; Its a good viewing video.". Would like to speak on it, no haste.
"We the People" refers to the ELECTORATES of the sovereign states; not of a SINGLE UNIFIED sovereign state. So in short: THE SOUTH WAS LEGALLY RIGHT, just like Kuwait against Saddam Hussein, or China against Tojo.
You agree with Judge Nappy-Latino, that the USA is a sovereign state? READ THE FACTS. _We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do._ That union is NOT a sovereign state; just a union OF them.
we need to require in order to vote that one must undergo a psychological test (to make sure that when forming their beliefs they are as dispassionate and as rational as possible)-that one take an intermediate-level civics test and read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and a few other documents-this would ensure that irrational, emotional leftists would never be allowed to vote
God Bless you Judge Napolitano. I don't agree with every viewpoint,, but most. I think you are a great ally for our Freedoms.
I could listen to the good judge all day. I had the honor of meeting him some years ago, and he is exactly the same genuine and gentle guy in person. We need more like him!
I don't like Judge Napolitano stance on abortion. He ascribes right to the unborn which undermines the right of he living. Fetuses's are unborn, and therefore have no rights.
yes they do have rights a clum of cells isn't a fetus its a human being if you're denying called it a human being and instead a fetus that not how biology works.
Then you're a gullible wiling dupe.
And he’s always been so consistent with his principles.
Bezlichnyy I think if people would mind their own business their wouldn’t be an abortion problem. I agree with you. I do think that if we raised our children to value life and be more responsible, it would be much less of an issue.
Judge we need your videos in every public schools to educate our young!!
Napolitano was so formative in my understanding of law and politics in my teens, and over a decade later I still find him inspirational. Thank you so much for publishing this speech!
*I am an autodidact, and studied law for 6 years in the early 70s. I was completely outside of accepted legal thought, until I heard Napolitano speak. It's nice to know that even though I can do nothing about implementing my knowledge, at least I got it right.*
He is the modern day John Locke.
Judge Napolitano for President!
Those are absolutely two of the best and most concise explanations of the 2nd Amendment I’ve heard.
Judge, please keep speaking and teaching as much as possible!
I only hope it’s not too late to save our nation...
Compelling! Brilliant! There is hope for America with courageous patriots like Judge Napolitano!
i sure like this guy!
To gain insight into the constitution the federalist papers should be consulted... but to understand the Bill of Rights, the writings of the anti-federalists are a must!
Also the state ratification conventions gives insight into what the states believed they were getting into. They ratified with the understanding that they could leave at any time, Lincoln put an end to that idea though.
Amen
You can't budge the Judge
As a presenter myself I would hate to follow this guy. What a natural
This is the most American thing I've seen in a long time. Sadly, true Americans are a dying breed these days...
It is an eye opener!
We aren’t dying. We have been let down by those we have elected to represent us and protect our rights. Instead they erase our rights to protect our health. I already have a doctor now i need a representative. Have you seen any?
@@sumatrican5990 I now understand why our representatives are trying to get rid of our doctors via socialism.
Here, in Texas, we have a good senator, but sadly he's one of the very few good representatives left.
@@TXLionHeart
Puerto Rican here. Former Bernie Sanders supporter here because his heart is clearly full of utmost compassion and fight for the plight of the American worker like a patriot from the 1930s fighting against monopoly corporations. But the radical left in 2020 has shown me that I was down the wrong path, and that while Bernie himself might be a figure of light and not one that seeks endless ego and power, if his ideologies came to fruition under his benevolent watch, they would immediately be abused by tyrants and used to rip away our freedoms. I have then since voted Libertarian in the 2020 election and don’t ever see myself going back. Tyranny observed in the COVID era almost has no comparison to anything I’ve seen in my life and I will not stand for it while I’m alive.
Libertarians should seriously start considering Judge Napolitano as the next PRESIDENTIAL nominee.
Bastiat in the Andes : He would better serve on the Supreme Court, or head of the DOJ. But just a thought.
Andrew P. Napolitano should be on the Trump´s list of Supreme Court candidates!
What a foreboding closing statement. Keep up the good work Judge
I absolutely love you I did not know who you were before today and that I regret but I have listened to three of your lectures today God bless you I love your mind I love the way you think I love your heart thank you for your Brilliance and insight you are awesome and amazing God bless you!!!!!!❤🕊🙏💋
The greatest of the great! Thank you Judge
What a truly remarkable man.
Wow-awesome speach
I'm supporting Austin Petersen @AP4Liberty to become Senator from Missouri via my donations to his campaign and my endorsement of him. I believe the judge is right about our Constitution and I believe that Austin Petersen agrees with him. It would be a great improvement to this country if the judge's views became dominant.
If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
Samuel Adams
If ever indeed - that time passed long long ago, for now money is the people's false God, and the government seems to exist in order to prevent true patriots from exercising the power to restrict it.
I'm happy to hear that Ron Paul's revolution is still strong.
I’m. A black male. I don’t like fox nor The Republicans however the judge is so convincing he’s one of the few that could change my mind
I love the Judge!
Such a brilliant mind, what are you doing not in the Supreme Court sir? May you Live very long and your hair unshaven in no black hole. Great work. Thank you
Fantastic and powerful. Thank you all!
I'm basically a leftist (Well Northern European style Social Democrat), but I still think Napolitano makes convincing arguments and is 1000s of miles ahead of most political pontificators nowadays.
Well you're wrong.
Napolitano is as stupid as his haircut.
His argument are pure GARBAGE, since THE USA IS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE; just a UNION of them, like the UN or EU; with the exception that
the PRINCIPAL SOVEREIGNS in each state, are the VOTERS; while governments are just their delegated SUBORDINATES.
So the VOTERS in each state, can OVERRULE state and federal government by popular vote.
FACT.
The Next Supreme Court Justice? Hopefully!!!
Mitchell Bupp:
Not a smart choice. A new pres. can fire him as AG. SCOTUS is for life.
I have no doubt he would be a great one. How do suppose he would be as president?
It would never be comfirmed, let alone picked as candidate. Nothing on the judge, naturally.
Jerome-G seriously ! considering the Judges philosophy and political believes being the polar opposite of the current political hegemony...nice thought but come on..
Ace he would be dead within a month of taking the oath.
17:16 Judge Napolitano: "I would love be able to tax the Federal Reserve out of existence." How do you tax out of existence, something that has essentially been granted the authority to print dollars indefinitely? The sentiment is appreciated though.
Easy, you impose a 100% tax on the printing of dollars...
I think he was simply wishing poetic justice.
Being able to tax it out of existence includes depriving it of "it's privilege" to print dollars indefinitely, does it not?
what a catch 22. if you choose not to sell your wheat then you can be regulated for not participating in interstate commerce. if you sell your wheat only to those in your community where you can hand deliver it you can be regulated for not participating in interstate commerce. if you sell your wheat to anyone in your state due to various state laws and regulations you can be regulated for not participating in interstate commerce. and finally, if you sell your wheat to anyone in the country you can be regulated because you are participating in interstate commerce. if for no other reason than this, the federal government including the needs to be driven out of existence and started over. this is corruption and tyranny even the king could not have imagined. raze and replace
Not often I hear James Madison referred to as 'Little Jimmy'
Illegal immigration and so called dreamers is where I extremely disagree with the Judge on. A nation has a Natural Right to make borders and to deny entry of NON CITIZENS! And to let the children of ILLEGALS to benefit from their illegal act is a dangerous and immoral.
*Believe it or not, there is a Supreme Court **_Dissenting_** opinon (which is off point, but published nonetheless), coming to the very same conclusion! It was published in the 80s, and is just waiting for some honest jurist to use it. Sooner rather than later I hope: our government is already so out of control, and so completely non-responsive to the people it supposedly "represents", that we have not long to go before tho whole house of cards collapses.*
Nations don't have "natural rights"...
It’s not fair to punish children for the actions of their parents.
@@sirmount2636 When has life ever been fair? Fair has nothing to do with much.
@@measl Things progress as long as the monster can be fed. The monster never stops growing more powerful until it can no longer get what it needs to grow, or its parts are chopped off.
Greatest historian ever
Such a beautiful speech.
Judge Napolitano offers a lot of respect and acclaim for Madison. I wonder what he thinks of the Constitutional reasoning of Lysander Spooner.
What a crime that so few people have viewed this.
Thomas Jefferson.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation….
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.****
Yeah, that and 10 cents will get you a dime.
READ FURTHER:
_We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do._
So the USA is NOT a sovereign state.
Only a UNION of them. THE SOUTH WAS LEGALLY RIGHT.
The Libertarian Party needs to focus on local/state/Congressional races ... especially local/state so they can build upon those victories and work into Congress where real change can occur. Congress can make the changes over the Presidential office.
13:46: "The STATES should decide what the Constitution means"
Ok judge, is that by VOTE, or does each state decide for itself?
And WHO, exactly are "THE STATES?" What PEOPLE are you talking about?
FACT:
1. THE USA IS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE; but only a UNION of them like the UN or EU.
That was established in 1776.
And
2. the principal sovereign of each state, is its respective ELECTORATE, i.e. its VOTERS.
That was established in 1787.
THOSE are the facts everyone needs to know, before making any judgments about ANYTHING.
Because that pertains to EVERYTHING in the world as we know it today.
The constitution is NOT a signed document and is therefore inadmissible in any common court of true law.
The Fed was never signed into law nor 'legislation' by the states, yet it exists, regardless of your 'constitution'.
All it does is give rights to some over others in Admiralty legislation and is unlawful in any true common court of 'law'.
This is why pol's say it's only a piece of paper.
I could write one on toilet paper and it doesn't make it lawful just because a bunch of lords voted for it hundreds of years ago.
Thank you very much.
Regarding "We the people" meaning "we the states", I believe one of the biggest atrocities and abominations ever performed by the rulers of men is the "Supreme" Court's ruling that corporations are fictional people. That ruling was well after the founding of the country so my point (or perhaps a question) is if there was even the remotest idea at the time of the drafting that there was some artifical entity such as "the state"? I think not, so "we the people" is more accurate. The "states" were not fictional people either.
I believe this misunderstands what legal personhood is (which is perhaps an unfortunate and misleading name for the concept). All it means is that an organization, being comprised of individuals who have rights owing to their humanity, itself has those same rights. So even though corporations aren't people and therefore don't have original rights, it is nevertheless illegal to steal from a corporation because the corporation is just an organization of individuals who do have original rights. To deny this would mean that two people could set up a charitable organization, and they would immediately lose all of their fundamental rights with regards to the property that they invest in it. A thief could loot their furniture and squat in their headquarters building and merely claim that he didn't steal from them, He took from their charitable organization, and the charitable organization has no rights.
Similarly, states' rights does not imply that states have some kind of original rights in the way that individuals do. It merely means that states, as an organization that (allegedly) represents many individuals who do have rights, share those same rights.
I wish Napolitano would draft a constitution as he sees fit. After the dollar collapse I think many more people are going to be ready for one very big reset including a new constitution based on what we have learned over the last 250 years...
The Judge for President.
We don't need Nappy-latino, the fake libertarian.
Representatives are those and and of the people, not the states, thusly being the beneficiary of the #Constitution if you actually know your rights and #Constitution is to be judged in your #American individual citizen favor, not the states... and the #CommerceClause 'INFRINGEMENTS' can be challenged by the #Constitution as where, what is a right can not be taken away and required a license and charged a fee for it.
Then you expect the city and state to think up some new scheme to extract money from people other than by abusing our rights?
The last man that will speak. The rest will fight. Amen
We the States and people of the United States.
I don't know Judge Napolitano--with all due respect--the description, 'Democratic Republican', seems to describe perfectly well the uniparty that we see manifesting its nature so clearly today.
exactly. i was thinking the same thing when i heard him say that.
It was a rebranded Federalist party, just changed the means of words. Have to stick with what work huh
it’s nice to hear a non-anarchist speaking at MI for once-that’s what’s necessary for AE to thrive
Wow, beautiful.
*It's telling that while virtually everyone agrees that SROs are immoral, the entire judiciary seems to think they are fully legal.*
UH OH...this man is too good to be tolerated. 👏
Great ending speech
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Lysander Spooner
You should listen to Jeff Deist podcast, with a rather bright young Libertarian who has formulated the "perfect" Constitution, that even a Anarcho-Capitalist would accede to. But one get's back to the original problem, and for which L. Spooner is most noted for in his own political works.
whiff1962 As long as I'm not forced to sign this perfect constitution, I have no problem with you or anyone else signing it.
do you really expect a criminal to stop robbing you bc you put a piece of paper in his face? you have to bring the constitution to life, a daily struggle, pleasure and task. or it is YOU who is unfit to exist!
He is so smart.when he spoke about law on fox over laws on impeachment.AG barr went to head of fox asked them to remove him off TV for anyone wondering where he went.
Judge for President....
The Constitution meaning is in the Federalist Papers, Letters written to NY. to get them to vote for the Constitution. The liberials ignore this, and gave rewritten the Constitution taking our freedom.
Napolitano a Giant
What kits are you talking about? Any parts needed to make a semi-automatic rifle into a select fire rifle, is already regulated by the NFA... and has been since 1986, and prior to that, since 1968 .
Actually, the "Bill of Rights" or "1st 10 Amendments" were drafted during the 700 years of Anglo Saxon and British History leading up to the ratification of the u.s. constitution. The Bill of Rights written into the first 10 amendments of the u.s. constitution are nothing new and were all derived from 1100 Charter, Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, and the like. Madison didn't draft these.
Now I wonder if the NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling that set the "text history and tradition" standard [regarding the second amendment] can be used to go after the abuses of the commerce clause?
26:45 Scalia wrote - and I paraphrase - “citizens shall have right to own, carry, and use the weapons of the *same caliber* as those owned by bad guys and government officials.”
I am seeking some clarifications. Would that mean:
The weapons could include atomic bomb? Military aircraft, missiles? Or government is not the same as individuals who are government officials? If not the same, does it mean same weapons that can be carried and used by the police, the military personnel, etc... did the founders understand this to include cannons and military ships, or did they understand it to be limited to something that can be “physically carried” with your arms without help of any thing or anyone else.
Dies the “natural right to use” mean no justification needed? Any Tom, Dick, Harry, Ahmad, or Muhammad could decide that it his right to drop biggest bomb he can against any tyrannical official (in his judgement) and since it is his right, then he should not be prosecuted? After all when the founders and revolutionary army deployed their weapons- including cannons - against the British government (mostly not civilian officials but the military) they didn’t expect to get prosecuted under their constitution. So same should apply if Jefferson killed Adams.
Thanks for any philosophical and constitutional perspective anyone can offer one way or other (or multiple perspectives).
This is a VERY bright individual...why can't he see that a government that gives itself power to act will only be answerable to itself?
Cognitive dissonance is a hellova drug, I guess.
My question is. Can we bring back the 13th amendment? And get rid of the shiysters from Congress. And win back our country. Signed we the people.
No. A clear majority in Congress and the courts are BAR members. The thirteenth never went away; what's necessary is enabling legislation and a statute to enforce. Congress won't pass the statute, so no enforcement.
The real problem with the Constitution is not knowing who has the responsibility to enforce it. Those in Government were granted their powers making them grantees. The grantors enforce what they granted. Who are the grantors is a good question. Look no further than the first three words for the answer. It (The Constitution) says, We the People.
We like to say that nothing made by man is perfect, but that's not true. There are many perfect things made by artists of all kinds from stories to visuals to furniture to homes to machines to meals. The issue with any constitution has always been its reliance on people to work within it exercising the extreme integrity to no abuse their rights granted under it. The Judge told the audience "We the people" should have instead said "We the states." IMO that is the Judge showing his technical leanings toward what would actually work better, as opposed to respect for Jefferson's passion that the individual is self ruled, and only the individual can give over their rights to their government, as opposed to the government taking them.
Fox news is so lucky to have him and so are we the people that listen searching for what is true.
Dave Smith laughing in the background at 28:59?
We need you on our Supraim" Court
Anyway to get transcripts?
i pray for the judge that he will not meet the same fate as scalia. natural causes and no autopsy.... very convenient under the under the watch of someone who hated is stance on the 2nd!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those last two minutes...
Yea Andrew!!!
Why did the congress name US Customs such
I've seen 2 of the judge's videos where he gives two different heights for James Madison, 4'8" and this video 4'10". Both are incorrect. Simple Google search reveals many sites giving Madison's height as 5' 4". Please, be consistent and accurate.
Because Google searches are ALWAYS more accurate than the experts, and NEVER repeat each other as fact despite presenting a suspiciously singular figure for an esoteric historical constant.
Please don't be a snot-nose millennial who thinks Google makes him a genius.
Libertarian policy on immigration is Wall is 15th Century concept. Taco Curtain would be no more necessary on Southern border than on Northern, if we ended Drug War.
That last minute...
Libertarian view that immigration should be encouraged is flawed as it is oppositional to collective ownership the citizens have over their nation. The government has no legitimate power without consent of the governed to give away franchise of ownership of a nation no more than it has the right to give away shares of microsoft and google to its citizens. Its clear if you consider the nation as owned by the people rather than simply an area that citizens are residing in which imo makes the geography of a people meaningless.
In our nation based on "individualism", the citizens do not have a "collective" ownership of the nation. That would be parallel to anything from a cult in the So-Cal desert to the horrific communism of the entire world. We have individual ownership, and it is earned in the free market by any individual who wants to try the excitement of capitalism. The rest of your argument seems to support the need for a "separation of business and state", so the rest of us can compete in what is suppose to be "our" free market.
Who does capitalism belong to, us or the government? What you are living through, is the take over of our capitalism, and your liberty to do business with each other,--and compete.
Immigration should be encouraged, but with productive people who can add value to themselves in our free market. That is exactly why my Great Grand parents moved from Poland to the USA in the early 1900's.
Boy, do I wish I could thank them.
No the USA is not directly owned by its citizens, but all of its territory is set aside to be available to its citizens first and foremost. I'm not sure what else you would call that but a form of collective citizen ownership. I really don't get how you got on the tangent about capitalism when I was tieing citizenship to collective property rights... If it wasn't 2 am after I just got back from the bar I'd try and figure out a way to tie in governmental representation being diminished by immigration as well. We either own the land, and thru our representation the government or it owns us and the land and can give it to whoever it wants. The reality leans towards the latter but I prefer the former.
As for immigration, I'm generally not in favor of it beyond spouses and I really don't care about the talent lost as we have more than enough undeveloped talent in the USA, its just cheaper and easier to import it
Absolutely powerful, can't believe fox lets the judge speak at all 😂
Commerce clause to me appears to be the regulation of commerce between the states within the states created for defense purposes.
You don't get it.
EVERY law means, whatever the principal sovereign SAYS it means.
And by failing to IDENTIFY the principal sovereign, he CONCEDES that it is the federal government.
However in reality, the USA is NOT a sovereign state; but only a UNION of them like the UN or EU.
And the principal sovereign of each state, is its respective ELECTORATE, i.e. its VOTERS.
FACT.
Tom Evans Government has no authority off its lands. Judge Andrew Nap.
th-cam.com/video/nGzymwIiZCQ/w-d-xo.html
I didn’t know John Marshall was Jefferson’s cousin. I would have thought he was related to Hamilton.
The power to regulate commerce needs to be totally taken away from government in perpetuity. Including the power to issue and control currency. That may sound radical to some people but only because they are either ignorant of history or actually prefer theft by government.
Did you and your Catholic friend Scalia ever talk about Stop Respecting Religion?
Now we are knocking on the door of. Terine"
....at least we now know what caused the death of Justice Scalia even without an autopsy revealing how they killed him.
Tell the man they have mastered that now"
21:28
of course the federal court has no authority to decide the federal government power
Shall not be infringed to be the Supreme highest law of the land. no government nor single body or group shell have SE in the Second Amendment or any of the other amendments the true amendments of the original Constitution.
"Interesting, but there are sounder interpretations in the Heart of
the Almighty, who invented it,
and the overall 'We The People',
are crucial to those things";
Its a good viewing video.".
Would like to speak on it,
no haste.
That is because Nappyass is part of the NWO Bitch Crew.
"We the People" refers to the ELECTORATES of the sovereign states; not of a SINGLE UNIFIED sovereign state.
So in short: THE SOUTH WAS LEGALLY RIGHT, just like Kuwait against Saddam Hussein, or China against Tojo.
That is why each person of the true constitution has the true meaning
what ???
what the heck does this even mean?
Jesus is the way
Finally I agree With Napo, sadly a historian , not a progressive
You agree with Judge Nappy-Latino, that the USA is a sovereign state?
READ THE FACTS.
_We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do._
That union is NOT a sovereign state; just a union OF them.
#napolitanoforscotus
👍👍👏
we need to require in order to vote that one must undergo a psychological test (to make sure that when forming their beliefs they are as dispassionate and as rational as possible)-that one take an intermediate-level civics test and read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and a few other documents-this would ensure that irrational, emotional leftists would never be allowed to vote
"We"?
Defense of satin casting satin by savage hands isn't right...they were colonized together
Start your own show judge. It'll be bigger and better than it was on fox sir.
This is a pro-gun judge after all.
Nap you had me till immigration. I know what posterity means.
As Julian Assange sits...