As a side note: Rand Paul – like the Bush’s, the Clinton’s and Obama – is an elite puppet.
Dec 19, 2014
“Jefferson and Madison and William O. Douglas and everybody that took a stand for human liberty would be turning in their graves,” roars Judge Andrew Napolitano about President Obama’s decision to use drones on American citizens.
The syndicated columnist, Fox News senior judicial analyst, and outspoken libertarian sat down with Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie to discuss his new book, Suicide Pact:The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Assault on Civil Liberties. Continue reading »
President Obama’s state of the union pledge to “act with or without Congress” marks a milestone in presidential usurpation of Congressional authority. Most modern presidents have used executive orders to change and even create laws without Congressional approval. However President Obama is unusually brazen, in that most Presidents do not brag about their plans to rule by executive order in state of the union speeches.
Sadly, his pledge to use his pen to implement laws and polices without the consent of Congress not only received thunderous applause from representatives of the president’s party, some representatives have even pledged to help Obama get around Congress by providing him with ideas for executive orders. The Constitution’s authors would be horrified to see legislators actively aiding and abetting a president taking power away from the legislature.
Readers of this page are well aware of the revelations during the past six months of spying by the National Security Agency (NSA). Edward Snowden, a former employee of an NSA vendor, risked his life and liberty to inform us of a governmental conspiracy to violate our right to privacy, a right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
The conspiracy he revealed is vast. It involves former President George W. Bush, President Obama and their aides, a dozen or so members of Congress, federal judges, executives and technicians at American computer ISPs and telecoms, and the thousands of NSA employees and vendors who have manipulated their fellow conspirators. The conspirators all agreed that it would be a crime for any of them to reveal the conspiracy. Snowden violated that agreement in order to uphold his higher oath to defend the Constitution.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
The question at the center of a new legal debate is, should the Second Amendment right of veterans be taken away? It’s being asked as a sticky issue in the Defense Bill is being tackled about whether or not vets should be allowed to carry guns.
Judge Andrew Napolitano calls it a natural right and one that should be protected. “It’s not a gift from the government,” he said. “You don’t need a permission slip to defend yourself.”
This legislation would permit bureaucrats in the V.A. to make an evaluation as to whether or not a vet is competent to keep and bear arms. “This is not power we repose into the hands of bureaucrats,” Napolitano said.
This latest legislation, he suggested, is an example of those who oppose gun rights using whatever leverage they can to impinge on those rights.
Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano joined Studio B to discuss Gen. David Petraeus’ resignation as CIA Director and pointedly asked, “What were FBI agents doing monitoring the secret emails of the director of the CIA? And, how is it the CIA didn’t know about it?”
According to Napolitano, in order for the FBI to be reading Petraeus’ emails, they would either need a search warrant from a federal judge or they’d have to write their own search warrant under the Patriot Act providing sufficient reason to believe the general was involved in terrorist activities. The only other way that they could have been monitoring his emails is by hacking into his computer, which would be a crime.
Napolitano argued, “General Petraeus just because he’s an adulterer doesn’t lose his constitutional rights. And he has the right to be protected from an unwarranted, unjustified investigation by the FBI or anyone.”
The cost of living increase for Social Security recipients will go up by 1.7% next year, one of the smallest jumps since the automatic adjustment for inflation was adopted in 1975.Never hesitant to express a strong opinion on the role of the federal government, Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in on the current state of the Social Security system this morning on Fox Business Network.
First going back through the history of the Social Security law, Napolitano said, “The money that is deducted from our pay here every week is spent immediately by the federal government. But the money that is paid to our parents and grandparents is borrowed. So, if that’s not a Ponzi scheme, I don’t know what is.”
The judge credited Rep. Paul Ryan for at least addressing the unsustainability of the current system in his budget proposal.
He summed up the state of the entitlement system and the tough decisions that will eventually have to be made by saying, “There are too many people dependent on the federal government and now the federal government is about to run out of cash. What do we do?”
“Those of us who really yearn for a return to first principles, the natural law, the Constitution, a government that only has powers that we have consented it may have… are frustrated by the choice between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney,” says Judge Andrew Napolitano, author of the upcoming book “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Your Constitutional Freedoms,” Fox Business contributor, and former host of “Freedom Watch.”
Judge Napolitano commented on today’s Studio B on the president’s invocation of executive privilege regarding the concealment of documents involved in the botched ‘Fast and Furious’ gunrunning operation.
“There’s actually a constitutional clash here,” Napolitano stated, saying that the Supreme Court resolved it once before in a very famous case called the United States vs. Nixon in which the then-president’s documents were subpoenaed and he refused to comply.
There are ways to tell if executive privilege applies to the said documents. The first way, according to Napolitano, is “if the conversations about the documents were intended to advise the president on his duties as president … if they’re talking about the Yankees, that’s not covered.”
The other applicable documents would be those involving a military secret, diplomatic secret or national security secret. “Those are the only three categories of permissable executive privilege … if it doesn’t fall into one of those three categories, and it’s difficult to find how this gunrunning thing could be [one of those three things], then the privilege doesn’t apply,” he said, defining a “privilege” as quite literally being the right of the president to keep the truth from the courts or the Congress.
Judge Andrew Napolitano stopped by Fox & Friends Tuesday morning to discuss President Barack Obama’s route to enacting his new immigration policy and what impact it might have for deportations in the future.
“The problem is this,” Napolitano told host Brian Kilmeade, “the President has unilaterally changed the law. He has rewritten the law. His heart may be in the right place for a group of people that he feels will have to stay here, but he can’t do that. Only Congress can change the law. The law requires predictability. It requires fairness and it has to be constitutional. If the President writes it, it’s not constitutional, and if he changes the law, there’s no predictability and only the Congress can decide whether coming before age 16 is fair. How about 15? How about 17? The President made it out of his own head and we don’t have a system that permits that.”
“If the President thinks a law is unconstitutional, he cannot enforce — he can refuse to enforce it,” he continued. “Thomas Jefferson did that. But the President cannot rewrite a law to make it more to his liking. Only the Congress can remedy that. The President is bypassing the Congress yet again for what seems to be the umpteenth time.”
Presented by Judge Andrew Napolitano at the 2010 Mises University. Includes an introduction by Mises Institute founder and chairman, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Recorded 29 July 2010 in Auburn, Alabama.