What Ever Happened to the Constitution? - Judge Andrew Napolitano

page: 2
93
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Tyrannyispeace
 


And until he was shot and became an Alzhiemer patient, Reagan held to it.

Daddy Bush took over and the slide to fascism began. The Dems and the Rep merged and sent out two sides of the same coin for us to choose from to make the NWO have a way to wrestle the power away from the people of this land!




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Thank you for sharing.
I would love to see Judge and Paul on a ticket

We first need to elect HIM get the word out, you know he'll run again.
This would put a big stop to the NWO plan!



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 


I thought the same thing back then. I was in school and the announcement that he was shot was broadcast over the loudspeakers.

I still did not like his pillaging of the SS funds, though they are an affront to Constitutional law.

What I am speaking of here is the 13th amendment. I do not like it but it is part of the Constitution.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Indentured servitude is forcing someone to work for the benefit of another. What exactly is income tax? Or social security tax? Or Medicare tax? Or property tax?

All of these things force you as an individual to give up your property or your labor to another.

To finish, thanks OP, just watched this again. I watched it earlier and just had to watch it again. Inspirational.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I'm with THE JUDGE, I MISS the U.S. Constitution!!
I'd MUCH rather see, traiter politicians, hanging from lightpoles, and a healthy Constitution!



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 


"Alzheimers"?? Perhasp, chemically induced. Papa Bush, ran things, AFTER the "assination attempt". Poor Ronnie- HE loved America!!



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotgal
I'm with THE JUDGE, I MISS the U.S. Constitution!!


I miss the Constitution, too, and I'm THRILLED to see a thread on it be heavily flagged.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I think the problem is the Constitution is just a bunch of words which are unfortunately open to interpretation, especially for the Powers That Be.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ugmold
 


I think the overall document is understood to stand for power resting with the people. The problem, I think, is the money that it takes to run for office and the two-party system we have - both parties being bought and paid for by corporations.

Where I live there is an Independent that I can vote for in November. That's the tiny glimmer of a hope that I have right now.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The Good Judge receives a huge standing ovation as he launches into an absolutely epic speech on the US Constitution.



Hmmm. It's funny when the same folks who call our President all types of names...still refer to a man who works as a Fox News Analyst for the past 13 years and hasn't sat on a bench in 16 years as "the good" "Judge Andrew Napolitano".

He is not a judge any longer.

He is a Fox News Analyst and has been for over a decade

FYI - Before he joined Fox News 13 years ago he tried his own TV ripoff of the "Peoples Court" which failed.

And while you all are cheering for this guy...know that before his masters at FOX slapped him down he vehemently opposed the AZ Law and called it Uncontitutional.

See Fox Video Here
mediamatters.org...

I actually agree with the judge on this one.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Your post makes zero sense what-so-ever.

You attack him for being a news analyst?

Yet you agree with his analysis?

What?

I'm having a hard time understanding why you even commented or how you want me to respond to that.

Anyone who knows who Napolitano is (which is everyone here) knows he isn't still a sitting judge (as if it's some kind of crime to refer to a retired judge as 'judge').

Anyone who knows who Napolitano is (which is everyone here) knows he is also a legal analyst for Fox News and has been for a long time now (as if working for Fox is some kind of crime).

John Stossel also works for Fox, I suppose we should all hate him now too.



[edit on 10-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tyrannyispeace
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]


Are you actually a lawyer? Because if you are, you have some shocking ideas about what constitutes 'evidence' and 'fact'.

If you're not a lawyer, or someone with legal training, I recommend you step down off of your high horse and at least be receptive to the idea that RNAA has a point - you wouldn't continue to describe a retired policeman as "Officer" nor a retired militaryman as "Sgt." - particularly with a profession such as law, where there is a distinct hierarchy of experience.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by duality90]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.



Hyperbolic arguments are infantile.

So, government agents have come into your home and threatened you with violence?

Please elaborate.

Income tax is Constitutional via the 16th Amendment. So are you only for the parts that you like? The Constitution isn't a cafeteria document - it's all or nothing.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I may be oversimplifying the definition of a right, but if it is my right to do something then isn't asking permission to exercise those rights against the very nature of what a right is? If I have to purchase a permit or a license to exercise my rights then they aren't really rights are they?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Oh, I thought I might add this as well:


The Judge vehemently attacked the Patriot Act as being unconstitutional.

The Judge vehemently attacked rendition as being unconstitutional.

The Judge vehemently attacked federal drug laws as being unconstitutional.

In fact the Judge attacks nearly all the criminal federal regulations as being unconstitutional.

What the Judge says about immigration law applies not just to AZ, but to the federal laws as well. They are in fact unconstitutional. This is a standard libertarian argument.

The reason why libertarians are mad about illegal immigration isn't because we think the immigration laws protect American jobs, its because of all the other unconstitutional regulations and welfare that allows illegals to come up here and suck off the system.

We want open borders, we just can't afford to have open borders at the present moment because the freaking billion unconstitutional regulations and welfare have destroyed the economy.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tyrannyispeace
reply to post by Justoneman
Indentured servitude is forcing someone to work for the benefit of another. What exactly is income tax? Or social security tax? Or Medicare tax? Or property tax?

All of these things force you as an individual to give up your property or your labor to another.


Take it up with the 16th Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But as for the property tax - that is not federal, that is a state tax. Take it up with your state legislature.

Yes, it's Constitutional for the state to tax your property, per the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution does not bar states from levying property taxes, and it does not grant the Federal government the power to levy property taxes. Therefore, the states may levy property taxes.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


So am I a lawyer, not as in the definition of the robes. But I could put a hell of a defense up in a common law court. Evidence that is NOT disputed is considered to be fact. In a court of law you can even SUBMIT to the present evidence if you wanted. But if NO evidence to the contrary is presented, it is to be considered FACT.

As for you presuming that he should not be called Judge.

Tell me, what do we call Bill Clinton?

What do we call former soldiers?

What do we call former doctors after retirement?

What point was rnaa trying to make about the OP and the video?

Oh, that is right, obfuscation.

Or better descriptor, argumentum ad hominem

So, what point again are you making?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Hyperbolic arguments are infantile.

So, government agents have come into your home and threatened you with violence?

Please elaborate.

Income tax is Constitutional via the 16th Amendment. So are you only for the parts that you like? The Constitution isn't a cafeteria document - it's all or nothing.


The income tax violates my natural right to keep the fruits of my labor.

Thus the income tax amendment is unconstitutional.

You don't have a right to the fruits of my labor.

The constitution's purpose is to protect my natural rights.

At one point the constitution was amended to abolish alcohol, this too was unconstitutional.

The constitution's job is not to empower government, it is to restrict government from unlawfully interfering with my life and property.

What is infantile is believing you are entitled to other peoples property. This is how a two year old thinks.




[edit on 10-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I could listen to that guy ALL day long.. Completely refreashing.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


At least two separate supreme court decisions contradict your claim on the 16rh amendment. Besides the blatant contradiction to the Constitution that prohibits direct unapportioned taxes.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by duality90
be receptive to the idea that RNAA has a point - you wouldn't continue to describe a retired policeman as "Officer" nor a retired militaryman as "Sgt." - particularly with a profession such as law, where there is a distinct hierarchy of experience.



I believe the Bar's point was in judges having gone back to private practice continuing to use the title "Judge".

We refer to retired senators as "senator", same with former presidents and governors. We refer to retired doctors as "Doctor" and retired professors as "professor". And yes, many retired career military officers continue to be addressed by their rank after retirement. I think judges who have retired from the legal profession retain the privilege of using the title after retirement from the legal profession.

Which is all semantics. Call him whatever you want, the point is, did his message resonate?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.





top topics
 
93
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join