Judge Andrew Napolitano on his radio show this morning pulled no punches when discussing the viability of Sarah Palin as the next President of the United States. I couldn’t agree with his blunt assessment more. He said:
“I just don’t think she possesses the mental capacity to be the President of the United States. She’s a goofball!”
So everyone’s favorite host of Freedom Watch has weighed in on Sarah Palin. To me, she’s a completely divisive figure. People seem to either idolize her or loathe her. I don’t think she has much chance of being the next POTUS. In fact, I’d be surprised if she did better than Giuliani did in the GOP primaries of 2008.
For more about what lead up to the Judge’s “straight talk” listen to the audio:
Judge Andrew Napolitano was the guest host on the Glenn Beck show again today, and he really knocked it out of the park with his introductory monologue.
Directly following his monologue he talks with authors, Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman regarding the Constitution, enumerated powers, and nullification. This show is a must-see for all of us.
Watch the entire show below, but if you don’t have time then take 10 and watch the first segment. It makes me happy that Beck has obviously given the Judge near free reign about what guests appear on the show and the topics that are discussed.
Earlier today Judge Andrew Napolitano was the guest host on the Glenn Beck show. Four liberty-loving guests appeared on the show with the Judge. Peter Schiff, John Stossel, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul all appeared. When the Judge hosts Beck’s show it almost turns into an episode of Freedom Watch.
If you don’t know what Freedom Watch is then please check out http://freedomwatchonfox.com/. It’s an online only show hosted by the Judge catering to freedom-loving people everywhere.
Check out the excellent discussions from the show today below.
Fox News legal commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Internet program Freedom Watch is one of the most fascinating phenomena in the history of the libertarian movement. There’s never been anything like it and if it were to break out to the Fox News television channel, it would constitute nothing less than a revolutionary development in American politics.
Take a look at the guests that Napolitano has been having on his show: Lew Rockwell, Bob Higgs, James Bovard, Paul Armentano, Ron Paul, Roger Pilon, Tom Woods, Pete Eyre, Nick Gillespie, David Boaz, Peter Schiff, Walter Block, and many more. Every one of them is a major figure in the libertarian movement. I myself have been on Napolitano’s show twice.
How many times have you seen any of these guests on the mainstream television talk shows or even on the cable television talk shows? My hunch is that your answer is “Rarely, if ever.”
For years, conservatives and liberals have played their little games of pretending to have debates over policy, acting as if there were fundamental philosophical differences between the two. In actuality, the debates have always been over which form of statism is preferable — conservative statism or liberal statism.
I attended a FFF sponsored event at George Mason University last night. Robert Higgs delivered one of the best speeches I’ve heard yet. He compared and contrasted the Great Depression with our current economic woes. Look for the video later this week. You don’t want to miss it.
Judge Andrew Napolitano takes a look at the Wilson fiasco from a different angle than most of the mainstream media, which tends to focus on the “respect” that the [office of the] President of the Unites States “deserves”. The Judge points out that Wilson shouted “you lied!” while the president was claiming that illegal aliens would not receive health care benefits under the “public option” proposal, and then examines this with respect to the Constitution’s “Equal Protection” provision.
The Constitution imposes on the government numerous burdens that we as individuals do not have. For example, I can tell my nephew to keep quiet at the dinner table because I don’t like what he said about grandma, but the First Amendment prevents the government from keeping him silent on a street corner when he criticizes it. Similarly, I can give a gift to some of my nephews and nieces because they are great kids, but I don’t need to give gifts of equal value, since I can spend my money on gifts however I wish. But the government has some burdens here that individuals do not. The Constitution requires that the government treat all persons similarly situated in a similar manner. This is the essence of “Equal Protection,” which the Constitution requires of the states and the federal government.
Napolitano goes on to cite case-law in which the Supreme Court has ruled that states may not deny people the right to an education based on citizenship status, and undoubtedly “an education is in the same class of social benefits as providing health care.” He points out that Obama with all his collegiate accolades certainly must know this.
Can anyone really suggest that the Harvard Law School-educated University of Chicago-employed professor of constitutional law did NOT know the law when he contended that the Congress can keep universal health care away from illegals? He must have known that, short of amending the Constitution to re-define “persons” and “Equal Protection”, whatever the Congress makes available by way of social services to the general population, it must make available to all persons.
There is no question that under the present law, Congress simply cannot pick and choose which “persons” to whom it will afford social benefits and to which “persons” it will not. How could the president not have known that?
Judge Andrew Napolitano takes on Obama, Health Care reform and how it relates to the commerce clause in the Constitution in an Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal today.
James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison’s understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept “regular.”
The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.
Applying these principles to President Barack Obama’s health-care proposal, it’s clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one’s health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.
Yesterday Ron Paul appeared again on “Freedom Watch” with Judge Andrew Napolitano. The Judge delivered another stellar opening monologue that was extremely critical of the hate crime legislation making its way through Congress.
Following the monologue Ron Paul was brought in to discuss the topic further. I enjoy these types of discussions because they steadfastly refute all of the completely inane and idiotic charges that Ron Paul is a “racist”. Anyone who refuses to allow emotional “arguments” cloud their reasoned judgment should understand that Ron Paul is completely opposed to any kind of racism or collectivism.
Unfortunately, most people don’t do their homework. They drool through life digesting all the news they can about the latest Michael Jackson-type death of the day. Ignorance is not bliss, ignorance is willful neglect. It should be our responsibility to know that our country of birth is fundamentally moving away from the principles of its founding. With that responsibility should come individual action.
I find it humorous that they call themselves “progressives”, as if advocating a return to the principles found in the Constitution makes one a “regressive”. No, it appears to me that so called “progressives” want to return to a time before the American Revolution, a time of empire and tyranny. If we want to have “progress” in this country it should mean restoring the rule of law found in our Constitution not continuing the practice of ignoring it.
Check out the latest episode of Freedom Watch below. Other than Ron Paul, the Judge welcomed Mary Ruwart, John McManus, David Bruckner, and Jim Babka to the show.
By Judge Andrew P.Napolitano FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst
The Secretary of the Treasury and the Chair of the Federal Reserve have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and the federal laws. Among those laws is the obligation of management of publicly traded corporations to inform shareholders in a meaningful way of the risks attendant upon all extraordinary corporate activity, including major acquisitions.
The acquisition of Merrill Lynch by the Bank of America was surely a major acquisition and an extraordinary corporate act. The president of B of A now tells us that the Secretary and the Chair told him not to inform his shareholders that Merrill Lynch was truly a risky investment. As it turns out, when Ken Lewis learned that Merrill Lynch was worth about $17 billion less than the $50 billion agreed upon amount, he attempted to invoke the material adverse change (MAC) clause in the contract of acquisition, which would have given him the option of getting Merrill Lynch for $33 billion or walking away from the deal.
“Ken Lewis, Henry Paulson, John Thain, Ben Bernanke, and Jeffrey Lacker, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, should all be prosecuted for extortion, conspiracy to extort, criminal fraud, and theft of honest services; and they should be imprisoned if convicted.”
I hope to make this a regular occurrence each Friday here at Liberty Maven. If it ends up like some of our other regular occurrences it won’t be regular at all. We’ll try though.
This post will be a hodgepodge of random thoughts I’ve had over the past week (or so) that never made it into an “official” article.
The topic of torture has been in the news and I find it fascinating because there are so many levels of arguments to the debate. No one put it more succinctly than Shepard Smith on a recent episode of Freedom Watch. The main arguments can be highlighted with a series of questions:
I used to think everyone hounding me to “get on Twitter” was torture (wow, poor segue I know). Now that I’ve done so I wouldn’t say that I’m addicted necessarily, but I’ve certainly discovered a new world (in 140 characters or less or course). Most of our articles are automatically “tweeted” right when they are published. So feel free to follow me/us at @LibertyMaven and start using this social media tool to help spread the freedom message.
Speaking of Twitter (damn I’m good at these transitions), Rand Paul is on Twitter sending his followers updates about his potential Senate run. His father Ron is not. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if someone were to ask Ron Paul if he twitters, he’d answer, “No I exercise daily and am in very good health.”
We liberty lovers went into a bit of withdrawal last week when Freedom Watch aired a “best of” show. Yesterday it returned in stellar form with guests Ron Paul, Daniel Hannan, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Shelly Roche, and Tom Palmer (CATO) joining Judge Napolitano.
Ron Paul and Daniel Hannan united in a one two punch fighting for liberty. They spoke about nullification, secession, and then compared Europe and America on the road to socialism. Another topic that they and the other guests discussed was protectionism. Peter Schiff seems to believe the U.S. need not worry too much about protectionism. Tom Palmer disagrees. Woods and Rockwell delve into the prospects for liberty in our lifetime.
Liberty Maven
Judge Andrew Napolitano takes a look at the Wilson fiasco from 
Follow LM on Twitter