What Ever Happened to the Constitution? - Judge Andrew Napolitano

page: 4
93
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaiinguy12
[ I will go ahead and assume you are liberal gay loving pot smoking hippy who hugs trees and wants to wash gores ***. See I can be prejudice and name call just like you!


So I accept homosexuality.
I'm open minded.
I don't smoke pot but it should be legalized (which is actually Ron Paul's idea)
I don't hug trees but I sure do enjoy protecting them and disagree with the destruction of the rain forest and the rest of our planet.
I want to wash Gore's what? I'm not a big fan of him but thanks?

So, you're not really being prejudice. You're just being a troll.

Please, no more derailing. Move along, thanks.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


Kettle, meet pot.

Did you watch the video or not.

No?

Like I told the other TWO, if you attack the presenter, you are using argumentum ad hominem.

So, in a court of law you would have lost the case, argument COMPLETE.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Nice speech and all, but sadly it's just one of those things that the average person will skim over and say "Yeah he's right!" and continue with their day.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
for those of you who love liberty and hate tyranny and police stupidity should def pick up the number 1 liberty minded podcast in america at the moment...Freetalklive....absolutely great podcast and website. the judge is on there every now and then but man the guys at freetalklive are just great and right on the bullseye when it comes down to our rights as humans and this giant problem we have called the government. please get the podcast daily! you wont regret it. here is their site...up at the top you can click and listen to the show...

www.freetalklive.com...

heres what they talked about today

Adam and Pete check in from Liberty on Tour :: Snitches :: Vincente Fox Calls for Drug Legalization :: Heroic Pirate Radio Operator Refuses to Bow to FCC :: Ian's Curfew :: NH Liberty Podcasts :: FIJA Outreach :: City Council Drinking Game Story Makes International News :: South Park :: Welfare Check Fail :: Making a Stand for Liberty :: Ambulance Dilemma :: Lying for Hope
click here to listen
freetalklive.com...

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Funkydung]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Funkydung
 


Thanks for the links.

I see one of my favorite Libertarians, Penn Jillete on the first link.

Will give a listen.

Another bookmark. Boy, that thing is getting extensive.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Looks like ATS is starting to censor people. No surprise there and im sure this post will be censored too



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tyrannyispeace
reply to post by Funkydung
 


Thanks for the links.

I see one of my favorite Libertarians, Penn Jillete on the first link.

Will give a listen.

Another bookmark. Boy, that thing is getting extensive.


the judge is what prompted me to mention FTL....he frequents FTL quite often so i figured i had to let you guys know about it...sorry for the seemingly promoting post

sure not a problem....i started listening to them about 5 years ago and that show alone had and still has a huge impact on my life and my mind. these guys understand what true liberty is and has no problem telling people the truth about the tyranny that is on us. very civil disobedience oriented. peaceful evolution is the key....there is more common sense on this show than any other ive come across... that is very refreshing....

they are becoming very popular...really gotten big since i started listening...they do their show from Ians house but they are now on many radio stations and growing...the hosts are Ian and Mark...Ian calls himself a volunterist..believes that we have no use for government at all and makes a really good defense for it....Mark on the other hand is more conservative....he believes in small government and also has served prison time for murder..he was at the wrong place at the wrong time but he didnt do it...and he is verrry smart it when it comes to the law and our rights...so it got a really good mix and they know their stuff....and theres some really good conversations and topics that are brought up. every day is a really good show....and there are lots of callers that bring up great subjects...very cool show def recommend it.

here's the shows affiliates check to see if they are on the radio where you live..but grab the podcast or just listen on their site.....
www.freetalklive.com...

not only that its a really fun show. its not the same old talk show you hear everywhere. its very good.....the callers take control of the show...can call in about ANYTHING and they will take the calls....98% of the time it is about current events but some will call in about funny stuff crazy stuff all different kinds of things but you will come away from listening to this show with more understanding of what true liberty and freedom are and understanding our rights better than ever.




[edit on 10-8-2010 by Funkydung]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaanny
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.



They're not joking. The Constitution has been being marginalized for years. It started when they stopped teaching the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independance in our schools.

This is by design - they don't want the avaerage citizen knowing what their rights might be as they are removed by the Government.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
A great lecture by an American hero. We could have him as one of the nine but instead we have Kagan. Yay us. Oh well, maybe soon!



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Theylive1776
 


Er... I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make here, but I'm pretty sure it is off topic. I don't see what reptilian aliens and Illuminati blood lines have to do with this topic.
No doubt you will rush to inform me. Let me just say up front: I am not interested.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 

Perhaps you should do some research on the 16th amendment. There are several good arguements that it was not legally ratified. Ive looked into it, and there is good arguement for it.
I can't quote my sources, because I'm at work and don't have access to them.
Give some research and thought. It is an amendment that needs to be revisited.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Tyrannyispeace
 





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

Tell me, what do we call Bill Clinton?


Bill. Or Mr. Clinton. Depending on how well we know him.

No. Actually, I know ex-Presidents are called President after retirement. But they are not, in general, still practicing 'politics'. It is an honorific earned for their retirement. If he were to run and win a seat in the Senate, he would be called Senator.



What do we call former soldiers?


Enlisted men are called Mr, Mrs. or Ms depending.

Higher ranks often use their retirement rank with the parenthetical "(Ret)" after it. example : Admiral Joe Blogs, USN (Ret). They are no longer practicing their profession and using the honorific in a dishonorable way.



What do we call former doctors after retirement?


Doctor is an honorific earned by achievement, not by practicing a profession. That achievement is not canceled out by retirement (unless, of course, the doctor is forced to retire due to malpractice or something). Medical Doctors practicing a specialty often don't even use the 'Doctor' honorific, even though they have earned it and then some. So they are just called 'Mister' whenever.



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


Only that he has been a TV personality LONGER than he was a judge and the legal profession doesn't like people who are not judges calling themselves judges as a kind of false advertising. How does that saying go? Oh, yeah.

Them that can, do. Them that can't, teach. Them that can't teach, become consultants.

He clearly didn't see a life's calling as a judge, and decided that he didn't have it in him to advance beyond the New Jersey Superior Court. Possibly he noticed that his anti-Constitutional viewpoint was a rather large disadvantage to an advanced career on the bench. That is a good thing that he could recognize that and move on to something he could be better at in his opinion. But he made a career choice that he wasn't going to be a judge anymore. He is not retired, he is not a judge. If he is anything, he is an TV Analyst. Period.

I'm OK with him having opinions, I disagree with many of them, but at least he has thought about the issues and is trying to destroy the Constitution with open eyes. Which is more than you can say about most of his kneejerk followers.

The fact that greater minds than mine (or his) tend to disagree vehemently with his anti-Constitutional viewpoint says much.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 

Perhaps you should do some research on the 16th amendment. There are several good arguements that it was not legally ratified. Ive looked into it, and there is good arguement for it.
I can't quote my sources, because I'm at work and don't have access to them.
Give some research and thought. It is an amendment that needs to be revisited.


It doesn't really matter if it was legally ratified or not.

The amendment is a criminal violation of my property rights.

The government doesn't get to decide it can be a criminal while the rest of us can not.

The government must be held to the same standard as individuals, thus the amendment is unconstitutional on the basis that it violates my natural rights.

I don't care if every person in America thinks it's a good idea to take people's property by force besides myself, the amendment is still wrong.


[edit on 11-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Tyrannyispeace
 


I was actually attacking your argument that Napolitano should run for an elected office. Not what was in the OP.

I'm all for what the constitution says, I'm not for this belief that we should follow it to the degree that some people do. The constitution can be changed. Just as an example I'll give you this;

Senator A was sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, senator A then votes to repeal an amendment of the constitution.

I have to ask you, should Senator A be tried for treason? Consider your answer then consider the congressmen that repealed prohibition. Treason?

Just thinking about changing the constitution is considered treason to some people. Thus the idea of 'thoughtcrime', thinking about doing a crime is considered a crime. Even when it's really not a crime to begin with.

The constitution has some vague ideas. Insomuch that the federal government can do just about anything it wants to so long as it does not directly contradict the constitution, a decision which is ultimately made by the courts so long as some entity within the nation believes it to have directly impacted them in some way.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Thinking about and arguing for changing the constitution is fine.

Enacting legislation that is outside constitutional limits is not fine.

The reason why the constitution is so difficult to change is because natural rights don't change.

Since our rights are static and never change, a constitution that protects our natural rights should also be fairly unchanging.

If the constitution is changed, it should encompass changes that prevent further infringements of our rights by the government.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by links234
 

Enacting legislation that is outside constitutional limits is not fine.


I've never read the constitution and considered it limiting to anything. It is, in some ways, the embodiment of freedom.

There's this concept that nearly every federal law is unconstitutional because it's not specifically stated in the constitution that it should be a law, thus should be done away with. However, if you consider the idea that every state enacts a law, wouldn't it only make sense that the federal government adapt that same law? Without a constitutional amendment? Thereby allowing you to keep your 'fairly unchanging' document while enacting legislation as 'laws of the land'.

The interpretation of the constitution only matters in the eyes of the courts. Not your self-righteous belief that you and a handful of other people know better than anyone else on how to interpret the constitution. If every single person, other than yourself, believed that the constitution should be re-written that would be the case. Irregardless of your argument that your creator afforded you some right to something because some person in power over 200 years ago did say just that, under the pretense that it's just a good idea.

To take a completely atheistic viewpoint; your rights are endowed, not by some unseen, ultimate power, but by your government. Rights that were created by men to play on the idea that you're only answerable to a non-existent omnipresence as opposed to society. If not for being expressly written as law, you would have no right to anything, at all, irregardless.





new topics
top topics
 
93
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join