What Ever Happened to the Constitution? - Judge Andrew Napolitano

page: 1
93
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+55 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
The Good Judge receives a huge standing ovation as he launches into an absolutely epic speech on the US Constitution.

In this speech the Good Judge provides a background on natural rights, the history of US taxation, and why an unconstrained government always becomes a tyrannical oppressor.




For more video of the Judge speaking on the US Constitution, look here:
fascistsoup.com...
fascistsoup.com...


[edit on 10-8-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
S + F

It just saddens me that everyone can sit and joke about how the constitution is pretty much a shell of what it was meant to be.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I love the part where one of the students tells the Good Judge that he is an anarchist, he just doesn't know it yet.

Then the Judge doesn't deny it and the room erupts in applause.

Beautiful.

Followed by the booze and hookers comment.

That was epic.


[edit on 9-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I so wished the Judge would run for a high fed political office.
I have the judge on my political dream team with Ron Paul
as President and the Judge as VP.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Then why dont we get a politician to run for president whos campaign is based on following the constitution?......

Oh yeah..... Politicians dont follow the Constitution... Thats why their politicians.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost of Chewie
Oh yeah..... Politicians dont follow the Constitution... Thats why their politicians.

then they need to be fired
and tried as traitors



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Ghost of Chewie
Oh yeah..... Politicians dont follow the Constitution... Thats why their politicians.

then they need to be fired
and tried as traitors


That's right! No thoughtcrime!

Severe punishment for those we disagree with.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Refreshing to hear, thank you. S+F.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
That's right! No thoughtcrime!

Severe punishment for those we disagree with.


You and I can have a disagreement.

This is fine and good.

However, if you come into my home and threaten me with violence if I don't give you my money, we are no longer having a "disagreement."

The politicians are violent looters using the power of the State to rob me of my property.

Thus, they should be tried for high crimes against humanity.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Just a few minutes in and I get the anarchy reference above. The right to be left alone. What a novel concept, eh?

One of those things I am always mumbling and grumbling about as I roam around the house, doing whatever while on autopilot and thinking of other things, "Why can't I just be left alone?".

I should stop thinking so much as questions like this don't have good answers. In fact, the answer kinda sucks.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


great video..................


.......congress cannont be prosecuted for what it says in congress...........

this is why they can lie like they all do


pretty much explains why the country is so messed up among everything else the judge says........

[edit on 10-8-2010 by neo96]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
What a brilliant mind, wonderful speaker and excellent understanding of liberty.

Some points about the speech:

His scathing retort against the 16th and 17th amendment was awesome yet simple.

The notion that once you give access to the treasury, people will only elect those that will continue that access is a highlight!


"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

While I am a big proponent of John Adams, it is of John Adams pre-presidency. His lesson on Adam's presidency and the acts passed in congress is dead on and shows that "Libido Dominandi" effects all.

An hour well spent...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Universal Truths are Uni-Versed in Logic and Reason as Natural law is as an Echo))))) unto the cosmos.

To Ring the bell of Liberty is to Sing the Song of songs.
And the "I"s have it.
Adjourned!



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaanny
 


It saddens me that people believe the constitution is an outdated piece of paper.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Stop calling the guy a judge. He hasn't been on the bench since 1995.

He is a professor and a commentator on Fox News, but he isn't a judge.

His experience as a judge and educator certainly entitles him to a bit more respect than your normal Fox talking head, but he is never the less a FORMER judge.

The American Bar Association considers it a breach of professional ethics to continue to use the honorific 'Judge' when they return to practice after retirement from the bench. I don't know about New Jersey, but Florida at least has tried to ban it.

Source: Bar studying the issue of former judges using the title 'judge'.


The ABA Commission on Ethics and Professional Responsibility also addressed the issue in Formal Opinion 95-391.

It said: "We believe that the use of the title 'Judge' in legal communications and pleadings, as well as on a law office nameplate or letterhead, is misleading insofar as it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results a lawyer can achieve and to exaggerate the influence the lawyer may be able to wield. In fact, there appears to be no reason for such use of the title other than to create such an expectation or to gain an unfair advantage over an opponent."



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Napolitano/Paul or Paul/Napolitano 2010

That is the ticket to get going.

edit to add, does anyone think, what he mentions about the Townshend Acts, have a similarity to the Patriot Act? Cops writing their own warrants!

reply to post by rnaa
 


Oh please, are you a worshiper of the religion of robes?

Attack the argument, not the presenter. Maybe you could learn a couple things about the rule of LAW.

Unless an argument or piece of evidence is debated, that argument or evidence is considered to be FACT.

So what you are saying is, what the JUDGE presents is fact.

That will be $2000 please, I just taught you the basics of court discipline.

That would usually cost a lot more, but for you I will give you a discount.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Tyrannyispeace]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Tyrannyispeace
 


The 'judge' makes more working for Fox than he would as president...so he won't ever run for anything.

Instead of actually doing something productive instead of getting paid a lot to say what people want to hear, folks like Napolitano will keep the gravy train going.

Just look at Sarah Palin stopped being an elected official to be a well-paid talking head, she'd rather preach on the constitution and make a bunch of money off of shmucks than put forth any effort into her ideals.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


I will quote myself from further up.



Attack the argument, not the presenter. Maybe you could learn a couple things about the rule of LAW.

Unless an argument or piece of evidence is debated, that argument or evidence is considered to be FACT.

So what you are saying is, what the JUDGE presents is fact.

That will be $2000 please, I just taught you the basics of court discipline.

That would usually cost a lot more, but for you I will give you a discount.


Oh, and what does this have to do with Fox, Palin or your obfuscational technique of attacking the presenter?

Please, the Judge will decide in my favor if you continue to not attack the argument and continue your attack on the presenter.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ronald Reagan's 1st Inaugural Address

Wow, I hope everyone goes to this link and read Reagan's First Inaugural address. Or listen to it, there is both video and text.

From the text-



We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the states or to the people.


[edit on 10-8-2010 by Tyrannyispeace]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Starred and flagged, OP. Thanks for uploading it here. Very interesting lecture, and a very admirable guy.





new topics
top topics
 
93
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join