Judge Andrew Napolitano is one if the few publicly vociferous voices in the wilderness, crying out for the masses to pay attention to how the Federal Government is overstepping its bounds with regards to the document that created it: the U.S. Constitution.
Napolitano is host to one of the hottest new shows on the ‘net, FreedomWatch, which airs every Wednesday at 2pm, and features notable guests such as Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Rand Paul, John Lott, Andrew Levy, Cody Willard, Mark Skousen, and more. The archives are always available at FreedomWatchOnFOX.com.
In a recent article by the Judge, entitled Can Congress Write Any Laws It Wants?, he discusses government’s propensity to violate natural law and violate its Constitutional boundaries. He sums it up nicely:
Is freedom a reality or a myth? Are the rights guaranteed in the Constitution real or just a pretense? Isn’t the whole purpose of government in a free society to uphold rights rather than interfere with them? If the answers to these questions are no longer obvious, it is because we have a central government whose only self-acknowledged limitation is whatever it can get away with.
The situation has slowly gotten out of hand, beginning with the days of Alexander Hamilton, and ramping up more quickly since 9/11/2001.
Read what Judge Napolitano has to say:
“Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? … NO.”
When Robert Bolt wrote that truism in his play A Man For All Seasons, his protagonist, Thomas More, was attempting to persuade the jury at his trial for high treason that all governments have limitations, and that the statute he was accused of violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful authority to enact. Sir Thomas was there appealing to the natural law as well as to the common sense of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of nature. As we know, he fared no better than those who today argue that Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and constitutional limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide them. [Continue reading]
Today on Freedom Watch Judge Andrew Napolitano delivered an exquisite rant on natural law and freedom of contract in the Constitution.
He rips the Obama administration for trampling on the Constitution. It is a must see. Watch it below. Video for the entire show will be posted a bit later once it is posted at FreedomWatchOnFox.com.
Ron Paul completely annihilated Stephen Baldwin over legalizing drugs tonight on CNN’s Larry King with Joy Behar filling in for Larry. Baldwin’s feeble attempt at supporting keeping drugs illegal were the same old trite things we’ve been hearing for years that have been refuted time and time again.
Not surprisingly, Ron Paul truly schooled him and the audience on why the drug war is horrid, marijuana should be legal, and he did it with a smile.
I loved the fact that Behar allowed Ron Paul to speak. In fact she allowed him to speak much more than Baldwin. Perhaps it was because Baldwin had nothing new to say.
Ron Paul’s appearance and words on this show should be played in court in any federal non-violent drug case, and there’s no way anyone would side with the prosecution. That is unless that person was lying to himself (or herself).
Watch Ron Paul break it down for the defense below.
Yesterday Ron Paul participated in a Committee on the War Powers of the Executive Branch, specifically discussing the War Powers Resolution.
He gives his opening 1 minute statement, then follows up with his inquiry of former White House Chief of Staff James Baker where apparently Baker gets agitated at Ron Paul’s question regarding the competing war powers between the Legislative and Executive branches.
Of course, Paul’s position is the strict Constitutional position and Baker minces words in an attempt to make Paul out to be incorrect. In doing so Baker’s twisted logic gets the better of him, in my view.
Once again, Ron Paul exposes the fact that the supreme law of the land is no longer binding in America and has been bastardized for many years.
Ron Paul was interviewed yesterday on Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton. Horton’s interviews are always interesting and that is especially true when his guest is Ron Paul.
They discuss the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Obama has promised 17,000 more troops and is expected to ok at least 10,000 more in the coming months. Questions are beginning to be asked… will Afghanistan be Obama’s Iraq, Vietnam, or worse?
As the escalation mounts we will likely see the antiwar left’s support of Obama wane completely if it hasn’t already. This proves yet again that Obama’s foreign policy is no different than Bush’s. Only the locale has changed.
We are in the midst of celebrating Abraham Lincoln’s 200th birthday at the same time Barack Obama is ready to put his signature on one of the largest spending bill’s in American history. It is quite appropriate. So appropriate to almost approach irony.
The United States was not a shining land of liberty prior to Lincoln’s Presidency. Slavery is the best and most popular testament to that. America was an imperfect country pursuing perfection. Lincoln made it worse. The fact that he is revered so universally from the surface dwellers is bothersome. However, the fact that so many historians make excuses for his authoritarian methods because he supposedly “freed the slaves” makes me downright ill.
Lincoln cared little for abolishing slavery. He cared about keeping the Union together and maintaining his own political interests. He was the first President to truly preside as a dictator. Some may argue that John Adams had dictatorial “qualities” as well, but Lincoln went far beyond the scope of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Lincoln and other Presidents after him like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and George W. Bush paved the way toward a more oppressive authoritarian federal government. Lincoln was the first though. It’s all his fault that we are high kicking toward socialism today. He kicked first. The rest have followed.
Ron Paul appeared on CSPAN’s Washington Journal this morning for a very nice 30 minute segment. Much of the first half of the interview centered on much of Paul’s own philosophy in our current economic and political climate.
The first few callers were of the (perhaps typical) “crazy sounding” variety that CSPAN tends to attract.
The final caller, one which I wish was taken first had a woman accusing Ron Paul of believing in an “absurdity” when it comes to free markets.
Paul replied with a simplistic yet profound answer:
“You are for socialism and a I am for freedom.” (paraphrased)
Indeed that one sentence sums up the current political debate in America. So, are you for socialism or are you for freedom? They are mutally exclusive. I choose freedom.
I’ve long held that just about every U.S. President and U.S. Congressman deserve to be hanged (or at least some sort of punishment) for violating their oaths of office.
Upon entering office, U.S. Presidents must pledge:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Similarly, members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives must affirm:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
If our public servants aren’t held to their oaths, then the oaths are rendered meaningless.
In similar fashion, Bruce Fein has opined in the San Francisco Chronicle, that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney have violated the Constitution in a variety of ways, and indeed deserve censure. Here’s a piece of what Fein had to say:
By wielding the threat of international terrorism, the Bush-Cheney team put the nation on a permanent war footing – the first time in history that war has been undertaken against a tactic. They maintained that the entire post-9/11 world is an active battlefield where United States military force may be used to kill suspected members of al Qaeda irrespective of international boundaries.
They claimed executive privilege and state secrets to conduct secret government – thereby circumventing political and legal accountability. This included directives to former White House officials Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to flout congressional subpoenas for testimony. They detained hundreds of people (including American citizens) as enemy combatants without accusation or trial. They authorized torture (waterboarding and extraordinary rendition), abductions, secret prisons and illegal surveillance of American citizens.
Like its immediate predecessors, the 110th Congress eagerly yielded its authorities – even the power of the purse – to the president. The Iraqi War Resolution, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments, and the declination to hold Rove in contempt of Congress were emblematic.
If left unrebuked, the Bush-Cheney usurpations of power will become part of the constitutional firmament and risk creating a safe harbor for future presidential abuses. Every member of Congress, moreover, is required to take an oath to “support (the) Constitution” pursuant to Article VI. There is no corresponding oath to support the Republican or Democratic parties or to subordinate the Constitution in the name of political harmony. Censure would be no novelty.
Ron Paul has a sign on his desk (as can be plainly seen in his video message yesterday) that says “Don’t Steal, The Government Hates Competition”. The news that the Federal Reserve refuses to disclose the recipients of $2 trillion in lending leaves me (and should leave you) madder than hell.
Today the Federal Reserve effectively freaked out in the foxhole and declared the spirit of democracy, if not the rule of law, to be disposable conveniences of better times.
In response to a freedom of information act request by Bloomberg News for the names of the institutions receiving public money, the Fed invoked an obscure rule to block the release of this information.
Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve refused a request by Bloomberg News to disclose the recipients of more than $2 trillion of emergency loans from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
Bloomberg filed suit Nov. 7 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 Fed lending programs, most created during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The Fed responded Dec. 8, saying it’s allowed to withholdtrade secrets internal memos as well as information about and commercial information.
Martenson continues…
Trade secrets? A trade secret is something like the formula for Coke. A trade secret is a patented business process the release of which would harm the competitive position of the holder. I am really at a complete loss to understand what sort of “trade secrets” might apply to the acquisition of bad debt from poorly managed financial institutions.
If anybody can supply one that might make sense in this situation I am all ears.
The important principle here is that democracy cannot operate under the cover of darkness. If every emergency, no matter how slight, results in the immediate suspension of our right to know, then one might reasonably question whether it is a right at all and whether this is a democracy.
Some of us would make the argument that the Federal Reserve is not a government organization, but a private cartel, and so is not bound by the Freedom of Information Act. It is interesting that they didn’t use that as a defense but rather chose to use “trade secrets”.
What have you done with my country? I want it back.
Liberty Maven![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=497963dc-61bd-4698-8939-806bc8751054)
I’ve long held that just about every U.S. President and U.S. Congressman deserve to be hanged (or at least some sort of punishment) for violating their oaths of office.
Loading ...
