What Ever Happened to the Constitution? - Judge Andrew Napolitano

page: 3
93
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
(Former) Judge Napalitino is not a new name to me...But still recent. I've been calling up his name on YouTube a lot.

Although there's some points he talks about where I don't agree with his opinions, he does make a lot of sense with his analysis of the law.


Originally posted by neo96
.......congress cannont be prosecuted for what it says in congress...........

Well, there is the fact that they're currently back in their home states to campaign before the next session...Seems like a good time to confront them with their actions in office & slap the cuffs on.


Also, Congressional immunity is limited, not only as to when they can't be arrested, but there's also a short list of the more serious crimes for which they can be arrested for, at any time & any place. Note some of the details in Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The bold emphasis above is mine.
Most of their felony offenses (any violation of the Constitution is automatically a felony-level offense!) are a matter of public record! Gather up their voting records & records of other actions in office, then have at 'em! Of course, when finding evidence for Treason, we have to abide by the Constitutional definition, as written in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

When the Federal Government is "giving aid & comfort" to the foreign invaders of Arizona (AZ had to give up geographical territory to the invaders!)...That sounds like Treason to me!

In short, they're not in session & not traveling to/from Capital Hill right now, so they can be charged for any valid offenses! Even if anyone who attempts this is too late before they head back to D.C., there's always the option of setting up for Special Election with Recall on the ballot...There's a lot of details in a series I found on YouTube: It's a 10-part series called "Restore America Plan Alternatives". It'll take a couple of hours to listen to all 10 parts, but it's time well spent. At least this way, we don't have to wait for the regular elections cycles to throw the bums out of our offices!

[edit on 10-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justoneman
reply to post by Tyrannyispeace
 


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


Well, considering he was shot 2 months after taking office (March 30, 1981), that means he didn't hold to it for very long.

He doubled federal spending and vastly increased the size of the government from the very beginning, while pretending that he did no such thing. And people bought it - just like they believe Sarah Palin today.

And the idea that he gets a pass as an "Alzhiemer patient" is laughable. He wasn't diagnosed until after his presidency. He may have shown some symptoms late in his second term, but he wasn't diagnosed until 1994.


You can fool some of the people all of the time.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


Oh his message resonated alright, which is why he felt compelled to launch a personal attack.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I agree with everyone who says, "If a politician does not follow the constitution, we the people should have a voice that will allow us to impeach him or her."

So, what does this say about 'Mandated Universal Healthcare' (Obamacare) and Patriot Act? They are unconstitutional.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Reagan talked the good talk, but he was horrible at walking the walk.



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

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Reagan talked the good talk, but he was horrible at walking the walk.



Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that, when Presidents get uppity, they usually end up dead? i.e. Kennedy or Reagan getting shot by the son of a good family friend of the Bushes?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Most of their felony offenses (any violation of the Constitution is automatically a felony-level offense!) are a matter of public record!


Please cite the law that makes those votes a felony. We don't get to prosecute people just because we want to. That's what tyranny really is.


Of course, when finding evidence for Treason, we have to abide by the Constitutional definition, as written in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

When the Federal Government is "giving aid & comfort" to the foreign invaders of Arizona (AZ had to give up geographical territory to the invaders!)...That sounds like Treason to me!


Has Congress declared war on Mexico? Are illegal immigrants coming in armed, then getting reinforced by Congress? If not, you're completely incorrect.


Even if anyone who attempts this is too late before they head back to D.C., there's always the option of setting up for Special Election with Recall on the ballot...

At least this way, we don't have to wait for the regular elections cycles to throw the bums out of our offices!


Completely unConstitutional. The Constitution says they are elected to their terms - 2 years for Representatives; 6 years for Senators. You don't get to make up new rules to remove them from office.

Pass a Constitutional Amendment with 2/3 of the House and Senate, then have it ratified by 3/4 of the states, and you'll have something. But you don't get to decide to end someone's term early merely because you don't like the guy you didn't vote for in the first place!

Just vote them out when their terms are up. It's what the Founders intended.

Funny that the thread is all about upholding the Constitution when most posters want to ignore the parts that are inconvenient for THEM. "What ever happened to the Constitution?" Well, some people think it's a mix-and-match as it suits their purposes. Perhaps they should pick up a "Dummies' Guide to the Constitution" and do some reading.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Mnemeth1, thanks for posting that video! It's a great find. S+F for you!

Personally, hearing a message like that really pumps me up and gets me going. Yet, how do we relay it to the sleeping masses? Getting the message out can be frustrating at times. So many live their lives in utter complacency.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
While I have some admiration for Judge Napolitano and appreciate his perspective and efforts, the realities are that this generation of Americans are predominately a melting pot of the children of spoiled baby boomers and immigrants from the 3rd world and have about as much in common with the founding fathers/stock of this country as Slave and Slave Owners; most are of the TV Generation, have never even read the Constitution and Bill Of Rights, let alone any true grasp of their meanings or the principals that created them.

As far as I can tell, as long as most Americans have their basics, their TV, Their Sports, a roof over their heads and food on their tables, they will submit to being what most of them are, debt slaves.

If this is not true, a 2nd revolution is coming and they will lose because they simply don't have the skills or will to cut it.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


When a senator or congressman takes office, they must swear to abide by the US Constitution.

When a senator or congressman willfully violates that oath to abide by the US Constitution, they are committing perjury of their oath of office.

Just as when a witness swears to tell the truth, they can be prosecuted for violating that sworn oath, so too can a representative be prosecuted if they violate the oath of office.

By passing blatantly unconstitutional legislation, they are perjuring themselves.

www.law.cornell.edu...

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > § 1621
§ 1621. Perjury generally

Whoever—

(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.


[edit on 10-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.
[edit on 10-8-2010 by mnemeth1]


I'll help you out then.

I am not attacking him for being a talking head on Fox.

I am pointing out the irony of someone affording a FOx News Analyst the title of "JUDGE Napolitano" despite his not sitting on the bench for over a decade...while at the same time rarely affording the President of the United States the same courtessy.

I am not a partisan hack, so YES I am capable of recognizing when someone makes a legitimate argument whatever side of the fence they sit on....so YES I agree with him when he says the AZ LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND YES I disagree with most of his other commentary and opinions.

I am further pointing his stance on the AZ Law is unusual comming from a Fox News Commentator.

If you are confused perhaps it is because you are more comfortable with non-objective debate.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


How to address a judge, by a professional protocol expert:

www.formsofaddress.info...


Is a Former Judge Still "The Honorable"?

Dear Robert,

I have a question regarding a former district court judge (in New Hampshire) that has returned to private practice. Would this person still be called "The Hon.," or would that be inappropriate because of his new role?
--- Mark in New Hampshire


Hi Mark

The rule is "once The Honorable, always The Honorable."
So, address the official envelope:
The Honorable (full name)
(Name of Firm)
Address

Retired judges are usually addressed in conversation as "Judge (surname)"

However this judge might not be using "judge" as an honorific. A judge who has returned to private practice would be addressed as "Mr. (surname)" professionally. That way he would not be addressed as "Judge (surname)" in court in the presence of the presiding judge!
But that said ... friends might orally address him as Judge (surname) socially.
We have a tradition in the US of using only one 'honorific" at a time. E.g., an Navy Captain who is a Doctor, might be addressed as "Captain (surname)" when he is your commanding officer, and as "Dr. (surname)" when he is examining your injured foot. But he is never "Captain Dr." or "Dr. Captain."
-- Robert Hickey



Since the Good Judge has not returned to private practice of law, protocol dictates he be referenced as "Judge".


[edit on 10-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234

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.


No, severe punishment for those who break the the most sacred of laws, our Constitution. Using your statement, when we punish somebody for murder, we are punishing them because we disagree with their view on murder. Take your stupid, nonsensical statements to Salon.com.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Two words,
PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL!

I have admired this guy for years now not only because hes from my home state but a constitutional lawyer!

Ron Paul/Andrew Napolitano 2012!



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
What has happened to the Constitution is that a handful of Oligarchs (illuminatie, the elite, whaterver) have taken over the federal government. The federal government is attempting to create a feudal system.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
This guy is a tool bag. Love when Bush was president, he had no problems once so ever. God forbid a Liberal (oooo not the L word) is now in the white house and he's having a heart attack over it.

Funny how most conservatives want to bone the Constitution and pretend they're Constitutionalists...but yet, some of them want to modify the 14th Amendment?

Hypocrisy from the right for sure.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
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...



Ron Paul couldn't even handle Bruno, how would he handle running the country? Don't get me wrong, I agree with the guy on quite a few of his policies...but still...he's a bit expired and outdated to be running anything.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Never heard of this guy until today he's a fantastic speaker loved it thanks



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaiinguy12

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
This guy is a tool bag. Love when Bush was president, he had no problems once so ever. God forbid a Liberal (oooo not the L word) is now in the white house and he's having a heart attack over it.

Funny how most conservatives want to bone the Constitution and pretend they're Constitutionalists...but yet, some of them want to modify the 14th Amendment?

Hypocrisy from the right for sure.


Did you even bother watching the video? Doubtful Do you even know anything about this guy besides what you read or hear on the TV set? Nope. Are you a total and utter moron? Yes
Case Closed,you failed with your fraud logic and not so strong argument. Typical liberal scum


Insulting or flaming a fellow member doesn't help your case or your agenda...so I'm not sure why you do it. Please, don't derail the thread and keep on topic instead of being a big bad bully behind a computer screen


But it is nice to know that conservatives are willing to call those who disagree with their ideologies "scum." Not surprising...at all.


[edit on 10-8-2010 by SeventhSeal]





top topics
 
93
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join