It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Ever Happened to the Constitution? - Judge Andrew Napolitano

page: 5
93
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


wow.

just wow.


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.


Stalin would love you.


[edit on 11-8-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Are you saying I'm wrong?

I love the constitution and the ideas it has...but I don't treat it as anything more than a parchment with some really great ideas written on it. Neither should you.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Tyrannyispeace
 


I could not agree more with your idea about being forced to work to support others. That is slavery pure and simple. Our elected leaders seem forced to use the needs of the poor to find a way to ingratiate and empower themselves while the truly needy get little real help. Just like in the Ayn Rand book, "Atlas Shrugged", they are going to take what they want for the betterment of all but it is not better but in fact much worse.

I do already gladly give to the needy and counsel to the homeless in my home town. Even though I am a conservative who did NOT vote for ANY Bush but will vote for Ron Paul types again who are getting slandered as racist and more, if I see people in need I help where I can. These people Ron is after are indeed the party of greedy looters Rand described!

They appear to be the same type of theives set up in the Temple that Jesus chased out for a day. They claim they do it for all, but clearly there are people who are on an inside track that get rewarded with our very hard to earn money. Money that is being blatently misappropriated. The criminals are running things for now and we have to outdo them before it is way too late. I think the FBI needs to get moving. I feel 95% of the citizens would back them taking out the scheming theives if they had even one charge to allow the feds to book them.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I think the right wing just showed how much they "love the constitution" recently by this wonderful parade of intolerance, ignorance, and hate...




What happened to the Constitution? I'll tell you, the RIGHT WINGERS STARTED ATTACKING IT IN LATE 1994!

[edit on 8/11/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Are you saying I'm wrong?

I love the constitution and the ideas it has...but I don't treat it as anything more than a parchment with some really great ideas written on it. Neither should you.


And that is why we have these problems - because the politicians think just like you. It is the Law. It is what makes this a Republic and not a democracy. I know you don't grasp the basics of liberty or you wouldn't be saying such inane, childlike things. I recommend you do some reading. When you learn the truth, you will cringe at the things you've just written. Try starting with American history, the 18th century.

""It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" -George W. Bush



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Are you saying I'm wrong?

I love the constitution and the ideas it has...but I don't treat it as anything more than a parchment with some really great ideas written on it. Neither should you.


1. The federal government made it a crime to speak badly about the federal government. The law was called the Alien and Sedition Act. Numerous republican news reporters (like Fox News) were imprisoned for demanding government be limited.

2. The Dred Scott Decision was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants—whether or not they were slaves—were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.

3. Thomas Jefferson, the Ron Paul of the founding fathers, recommended to Congress an embargo which would prohibit all American ships from departing for a foreign port. This measure, which became law, attempted to end American foreign trade. The law was called the Embargo Act of 1807.

4. Roosevelt imposed a 100% - yes 100% - marginal tax rate on people making over 2,500 dollars a year - through the use of an executive order.

5. The government passed the Patriot Act which allows for warrantless wiretapping and rendition.

------


What do all those criminal acts of the government have in common?

They were all violations of constitutional powers.

Liberty is not granted to you by government. Only a nut would think that. Your rights come from the fact you are human. They have nothing to do with government granting them to you.

You are obviously the product of a public educational system.







[edit on 11-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
might i suggest another thing real quick....this little video is a real gem when it comes to what you guys are talking about....well sorta...check it out and see what u think.



Statism is Dead - Part 1




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Why is it a "right winger" thing? Government is a two-headed leviathan. Both parties have contributed to the utter ruin of this republic. It is We the People that are to blame because we feed this beast. Justice and rule of law is what is missing. There are a lot of criminals, throughout the whole spectrum of politics that are getting away with their crimes. Until we reign them in, we will have no peace.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Funkydung
 


I love true news.

Stefan Molyneux is awesome.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.


All judges are anarchists. Didnt you know that?
Second line next to the first line above.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by RRokkyy]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Are you saying I'm wrong?

I love the constitution and the ideas it has...but I don't treat it as anything more than a parchment with some really great ideas written on it. Neither should you.


I agree completely. I loved Napolitano's speech, but I think the ONE weak part of it was when he was talking about where we get our natural rights from. He said there were two answers, one for the religious, and one for the secular.

For the religious argument, he said that the Creator endowed us with natural rights. If this is the case then we most surely have natural rights, and nothing man says could trump the will of a Creator.

For his secular argument, he said that "I own my own thoughts, I own my own body, I own the ideas and the feelings and the entire content contained therein."

I thought this was a rather weak explanation from a secular standpoint. Surely, in some village in Japan 6000 years ago, there was a village chief who may have legally owned the thoughts and feelings and bodies of his fellow men. Keep in mind, this argument must exclude any spiritual overtones, if the argument is to apply to atheists.

I don't believe in a Creator, I believe that there is no innate right of man to be free over himself - I love the idea, but I don't see how that mechanism might exist and function in our reality. Plus, just take a look at the human-trafficking network all over the globe. There are thousands of people who would scoff at you for saying that all men are born free. We SHOULD be, but it is just a great idea.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 


I typically don't believe in great ideas either.

Too much work.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


LoL


It never ceases to amaze and amuse me, how hard people will work for their own enslavement. Here I am, inside a great idea, thinking great thoughts, wondering when the other jack-boot is going to fall.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
"The right to be left alone" - My favorite.

Don't bother me, and I won't bother you. Outside of that keep your interest away from my private affairs.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by mryanbrown]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Son of Will
 


I typically don't believe in great ideas either.

Too much work.



Apologies for my confusion, but are you implying that I don't believe the Constitution is a collection of great ideas? You were replying to me with that statement but it doesn't seem to apply to anything I've written. I just woke up, I might not be sharp enough to pick up subtle humor =)



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 


Here is the deal with the secular argument.

What the judge did not expand further on is this, everyone has the RIGHT to say no.

Yes, the tyrant can kill you, but you can also kill the tyrant.

All one has to do is stand up and say, "I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!"



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Some context:



1. The federal government made it a crime to speak badly about the federal government. The law was called the Alien and Sedition Act. Numerous republican news reporters (like Fox News) were imprisoned for demanding government be limited.

The Alien and Sedition Acts expired in 1802 - 200 years ago - what Fox News reporter was arrested in relation to these sedition acts?

The Alien Friends Act and the Alien Enemies Act were rather close in concept to the Arizona anti-Mexican laws. The Naturalization Act required 14 years residence before an alien could become a citizen. The Sedition Act was in many ways analogous to today's (un)Patriotic Act.

The major political groupings at the time were the 'Federalists' and the 'Democratic-Republicans'. Federalists supported the acts, and Democratic-Republicans were against. The Acts were never appealed to the SCOTUS which was anyway dominated by Federalists, they all expired by 1802, and Marbury vs. Madison didn't establish the concept of Judicial Constitutional Review until 1803.

The acts were specifically in response to the undeclared "Franco-American War". The new Republic of France got pissed off at the US for cozying up to Britain (the Jay Treaty) and refusing to repay its Revolutionary war debts on the grounds that they were owed to the French Monarchy, not the Republic.

In short, the Constitution was only 10 years old when these laws were enacted and many people could not yet reconcile the idea of fighting a war with an open Government. There wasn't 220 years of interpretation and changed expectations.



2. The Dred Scott Decision was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent ... were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.


Dred Scott is universally condemned as the worst mistake in the history of the SCOTUS, however it took place in the context that slavery was legal (1857), and the Constitution protected property rights, thus Dred Scott overturned the Missouri Compromise. It also seems to have found in the Declaration of Independence some justification for its ruling that African descendants cannot be citizens of the United States (weird but true!).

After the Civil War, it was recognized Dred Scott showed that the Constitution was silent on very important concept of citizenship and protection of civil rights. In response to the former slave states attempting to reintroduce slavery indirectly by restricting movement, denying them access to the judicial system, and forcing them to engage in long-term labor contracts against their will, Congress proposed, and the States ratified the 14th Amendment.

Section 1 of the 14th amendment is specifically designed to provide a definition of Citizenship and to overturn Dred Scott. Other provisions ensure that the "Civil Rights act of 1866" could not be overturned by the SCOTUS on lack of authority grounds or a future Congress from overriding it with a simple vote.



3. Thomas Jefferson, the Ron Paul of the founding fathers, recommended to Congress an embargo which would prohibit all American ships from departing for a foreign port. This measure, which became law, attempted to end American foreign trade. The law was called the Embargo Act of 1807.


Britain and France were at war. Britain declared that any ship bound for Europe must call at a British port first (to deny trade to France) and blockaded the European ports. France responded with a blockade of her own, which she could not enforce, but did seize foreign ships, including American, that obeyed the British blockade. The British also kidnapped American citizens and 'pressed' them into military duty. War fever started building in the USA.

Jefferson tried to use sanctions against the British and French by imposing a trade embargo on the theory that both relied on American goods to prosecute their war against each other. The embargo failed because American's were more dependent on the export trade than the British and French were on American imports. Just as today, sanctions make the sanctioner feel good for about five minutes, but seldom accomplish anything of real merit. In this case, the embargo led inevitably to the war of 1812, exactly the opposite of what Jefferson desired.

Comparing Thomas Jefferson to Ron Paul is, as nicely as one can put it, batcrap insane. Jefferson was a democrat: he believed in the government by consent of the people. Libertarians are anarchists: their beliefs inevitably result in rule by a power elite. These are polar opposites. Libertarians look to the founding fathers for 'inspiration', yet deny that those founding fathers recognized the need for government. They need to read the "Preamble to the Constitution".



4. Roosevelt imposed a 100% - yes 100% - marginal tax rate on people making over 2,500 dollars a year - through the use of an executive order.


The figure is $25,000 not $2,500. You are off by a factor of ten. Mistakes of that magnitude play havoc with your credibility.

The correct figure of $25,000 doesn't sound like much today, but it is equivalent to about $2,200,000 today (by share of GDP).

Don't forget that there was a war that had to be paid for. The Republican controlled Congress shortly came up with alternate ways to fund the war and that marginal rate was dropped - to 90%.



5. The government passed the Patriot Act which allows for warrantless wiretapping and rendition.


The un-American (un)Patriot Act is an abomination and has no precedent in the US since the above named Alien and Sedition Acts (though the WWII Japanese concentration camps were close). Even the 'official' name is a slap at the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution.



What do all those criminal acts of the government have in common?


They have all (with the unfortunate exception of the (un)Patriot Act) been repudiated by 'We the People'.



They were all violations of constitutional powers.


1. Alien and Sedition Acts were not tested, so we have no way of knowing that for sure. Judging them by today's standards is pointless. If anything, they should be judged as an object lesson for a fledgling nation exploring the limts of its new Constitution.

2. Dred Scott was absolutely constitutional. It did not, however, represent what 'We the People' thought the Constitution should say. That is why the 'We the People' saw to it that the 14th amendment corrected the problem.

3. There was nothing un-Constitutional about Jefferson's Embargo. Wrong-headed, even disastrous, sure, but Un-Constitutional? No. No more Un-Constitutional than Kennedy's embargo against Cuba or Bush's embargo against Iraq.

4. Roosevelt's Presidential order was also not un-Constitutional. It was an emergency act to shore up access to credit as the US geared up for the war (lenders wouldn't lend unless they could see that they could be paid back, after all). When Congress established a 'approved' method for financing the war, the Executive order was no longer required.

5. No argument with you there. Much of the (un)Patriot Act is obviously un-Constitutional. A fifth grader could spot the violence that this act does to the Constitution.



Liberty is not granted to you by government. Only a nut would think that. Your rights come from the fact you are human. They have nothing to do with government granting them to you.


That is extremely simplistic. Most humans throughout history have not enjoyed anything approaching the rights provided by our form of government. It isn't called 'the Great American Experiment' for nothing. It is precisely because those rights and liberties were recognised and codified as the basis of a Government for the first time in human history. The concept that 'all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights' could be used as the basis for a governing system is barely 300 years old.

You are right though, that 'Liberty is not granted to you by government' in the United States. This was demonstrably not true of other forms of governments in vogue at the time of the founding, and such Liberty flowing from the creator (or more simply by the fact of your humanity) was revolutionary in every sense of the word. Liberties can be taken away by Governments, but not granted.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


So the authors of the Constitution recognizing that some form of Government was essential, sought to define a Government that would protect (not grant) those liberties that had been newly identified as human right. It was clear that the Monarchy they had so recently revolted against would not serve, and the Articles of Confederation had failed utterly. So the constitution goes on to define the Government, what it is expected to do, and what it is forbidden from doing.



You are obviously the product of a public educational system.


That is a pathetic attack on the most fundamentally important institution in the America. There is absolutely nothing more important in America than educating the children of America. Attempting to deny or restrict access to an education to any child is an act of violence to the liberties of 'We the People' much more fundamental than the (un)Patriot Act does to the Constitution.

You must be a product of a religious home school with woefully uninformed tutors.


[edit on 11/8/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 




1. Alien and Sedition Acts were not tested, so we have no way of knowing that for sure.


Don't be ridiculous. I'm seriously stupefied that you think "we have no way of knowing" if the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. They were enacted by the Federalists in such a way as to exclude the VP (Jefferson) and to end on the date of next election cycle. They were designed to block the speech of the republicans - many of whom were arrested under this act - see 1st Amendment.


2. Dred Scott was absolutely constitutional. It did not, however, represent what 'We the People' thought the Constitution should say. That is why the 'We the People' saw to it that the 14th amendment corrected the problem.


"Dred Scott was absolutely constitutional" = LOL


3. There was nothing un-Constitutional about Jefferson's Embargo. Wrong-headed, even disastrous, sure, but Un-Constitutional? No. No more Un-Constitutional than Kennedy's embargo against Cuba or Bush's embargo against Iraq.


"There was nothing un-Constitutional about Jefferson's Embargo" - Jefferson didn't levy an embargo against a foreign nation HE EMBARGOED THE US! He shut down ALL SHIPPING - TO EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE OUTSIDE OF THE US. The act directly led to the war of 1812. In this case you may have an argument that Feds were within constitutional bounds, but I consider such an action against the American public to be literally equivalent to an act of war, which it indeed caused. It violates every tenet of the preamble. It was unjust, lead to a war, and impoverished the nation. Everything the constitution was designed to prevent. Every tenet of the preamble was violated by this action.



4. Roosevelt's Presidential order was also not un-Constitutional. It was an emergency act to shore up access to credit as the US geared up for the war (lenders wouldn't lend unless they could see that they could be paid back, after all). When Congress established a 'approved' method for financing the war, the Executive order was no longer required.


"Roosevelt's Presidential order was also not un-Constitutional." = LOL

The executive branch does not have the power to levy taxes, let alone 100% taxes, on income or anything else.


5. No argument with you there. Much of the (un)Patriot Act is obviously un-Constitutional. A fifth grader could spot the violence that this act does to the Constitution.


I'm seriously in shock that you found something the federal government did unconstitutional.



[edit on 11-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





"That is a pathetic attack on the most fundamentally important institution in the America"


So you say. But from where does the Federal Government derive this power to manage the nations education? ANd yea, that was a lame thing for him to say.



"There is absolutely nothing more important in America than educating the children of America. "


Yes, you are absolutely correct - in the basic idea of education. But do we need corporations and foundations indoctrinating our children? Are the schools really teaching or are they just creating obedient, unquestioning servants? -see George Carlin



"You must be a product of a religious home school with woefully uninformed tutors."


Way to take the high road, Dude. You know, I agreed with a some of your post, and was enjoying it - right up to the point where you put your foot in your mouth.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
abcdefg


[edit on 12-8-2010 by imherejusttoread]




top topics



 
93
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join