I'm Judge Andrew Napolitano and I'm happy to have landed in the Gulch. Ask Me Anything.
I'm Judge Andrew Napolitano, Senior Judicial Analyst for Fox News Channel, and New York Times best selling author. I was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey and I'll be here today from 1PM to 2PM ET to take your questions and to talk about my new book "Suicide Pact" (http://suicidepactbook.com/), a book exposing the alarming history of presidential power grabs performed in the name of national security.
Today through Wednesday, when you buy "Suicide Pact", you'll be eligible to get another one of my books, "The Freedom Answer Book", for free. Find details here: http://suicidepactbook.com/bookbomb.php
Gulch Producers get a third book of mine, "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom", for free as well. Find details here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1a...
Alex will be helping me out with my today by reading me the questions over the phone and typing my responses. I look forward to your questions and comments. I'll be back at 1PM ET.
- - - - - - - - - -
EDIT 1: 12.08.14 1PM: The Judge is here. Here we go.
EDIT 2: 12.08.14 2PM: The Judge has left the building! Check out his farewell comment here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1b...
- - - - - - - - - -
PROOF: https://twitter.com/Judgenap/status/5419...
- - - - - - - - - -
BUY THE BOOK: "Suicide Pact" http://suicidepactbook.com/
- - - - - - - - - -
FROM SCOTT: The Judge will be here at 1PM ET. Post your questions here now as comments below. If you have multiple questions, please post them individually. Try and keep the questions brief so the Judge can get through as many as possible. Also, make sure to vote on the questions (and this post) as the best will rise to the the top of the list.
After 1PM ET, refresh this page with your browser to see the Judge's replies as they come in.
- - - - - - - - - -
NOT YET A GULCH PRODUCER?
- Create a new Galt's Gulch Account: https://galtsgulchonline.appspot.com/acc...
- Upgrade an existing Galt's Gulch Account: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/account/...
- - - - - - - - - -
Today through Wednesday, when you buy "Suicide Pact", you'll be eligible to get another one of my books, "The Freedom Answer Book", for free. Find details here: http://suicidepactbook.com/bookbomb.php
Gulch Producers get a third book of mine, "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom", for free as well. Find details here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1a...
Alex will be helping me out with my today by reading me the questions over the phone and typing my responses. I look forward to your questions and comments. I'll be back at 1PM ET.
- - - - - - - - - -
EDIT 1: 12.08.14 1PM: The Judge is here. Here we go.
EDIT 2: 12.08.14 2PM: The Judge has left the building! Check out his farewell comment here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1b...
- - - - - - - - - -
PROOF: https://twitter.com/Judgenap/status/5419...
- - - - - - - - - -
BUY THE BOOK: "Suicide Pact" http://suicidepactbook.com/
- - - - - - - - - -
FROM SCOTT: The Judge will be here at 1PM ET. Post your questions here now as comments below. If you have multiple questions, please post them individually. Try and keep the questions brief so the Judge can get through as many as possible. Also, make sure to vote on the questions (and this post) as the best will rise to the the top of the list.
After 1PM ET, refresh this page with your browser to see the Judge's replies as they come in.
- - - - - - - - - -
NOT YET A GULCH PRODUCER?
- Create a new Galt's Gulch Account: https://galtsgulchonline.appspot.com/acc...
- Upgrade an existing Galt's Gulch Account: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/account/...
- - - - - - - - - -
1) That we who love freedom can reverse this slide into darkness? Are there enough of us?
2) That a revolution is possible in today's America in the face of the surveillance State?
People may find that there is more freedom in certain parts of the country and if the federal government is not tamed, the United States may separate into several smaller countries each with its own culturally norms.
I hope that it doesn’t come to a bloody revolution, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the case.
Please come again.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I look forward to reading your book.
And I look forward to the days ahead: they will bring correction, either though government reform or personal rejection.
All the best.
Sincerely,
Thank you for your time. I loved your book, 'It's Dangerous To Be Right When The Government Is Wrong.' To your continued success.
Kind Regards,
NonMoochingArtist
My question is about the ACA. I have concerns about how it is implemented. My concerns are about how many government agencies are exchanging and sharing my personal information amongst themselves through one hub, a centralizing of the whole structure. I always thought government agencies were suppose to -- by design or maybe by law, remain independent of one another. Is this a blurring of that line, and is there a constitutional reference you could point to that would justify my concern?
There is Supreme Court case law that would indicate that the ACA is unconstitutional where it interferes with constitutionally protected privacy. Constitutionally protected privacy has been articulated in several supreme court opinions, but in the 4th Amendment it applies to persons, papers, houses, and effects - so clearly documents that you send to your doctor’s office could not be shared with the IRS or with DEA even if the doctor is forced to share them with Health and Human Services.
So your fear is a valid and legitimate one.
These particular issues have not yet been litigated by federal courts because no one has complained about them yet, as far as I know, and I generally monitor this type of litigation but I suspect we will be hearing about it soon.
1) The Commerce clause ONLY applies to activity that crosses state lines and is about "regulating" said interstate commerce. Regulating is not forcing someone to buy a product.
2) Health Insurance is not now nor has it been purchased across state lines, Insurance companies create "State ONLY" entities where said insurance is ONLY purchased by from that Sate isolated entity, therefore there is NO interstate commerce to regulate meaning the ACA in itself is a complete fraud.
I do not blame the Supreme Court, since it is not their job to argue the points one way or another, only make a determination based on what "IS" argued.
That in itself which I have never heard argued by these alleged Constitutional Scholars has been very disappointing.
My attitude towards Natural Law has been prominently influenced by St Thomas Aquinas.
The British author G.K. Chesterton has influenced my social views.
I am familiar with all but G.K. Chesterton. You have provided a new avenue for study.
Best Regards,
O.A.
The instruments of the safe keeping of liberty are there, provided the American public, Congress, and courts have the courage and intellect to use them.
Often the creation of an imperialist Presidency has come about because in war time people are afraid and are willing to surrender their liberty and wealth to a government promising to take care of them.
Only when people realize such surrenders are a one way street and enable succeeding generations of imperialists Presidents to yield even more power over their grandchildren can this be reversed.
Stated another way, Congress and the courts are as much to blame for an imperialist Presidency as are the Presidents who have made this job imperial.
I like to think the Constitution is a foolproof formula where checks-and-balances make gov't not dependeing on the fedelity of those whose hands it's placed. That's a conceit. The Constitution only only works if we the people constantly work for it.
I would abolish the federal income tax. I would not permit a federal sales tax or use tax at all.
The fantastic growth of the federal government began when the feds stopped assessing the states and started assessing individuals.
In my world view, the federal government wouldn’t have the money to do much of what it does today because the states just wouldn’t send it [money] in.
As interesting as it is, if the federal government assessed the states, there’s very little the feds could do to the states that didn’t pay the assessment. In fact, it would be a way of saying thanks but no thanks.
Thank's again. :)
Yes! In today's world, states use taxpayer monies to fund programs to help residents of the state get money from federal programs. So people send their money to US Treasury and the State. The state uses that money to help people get back money they pay to the US Treasury. This would all stop if the states funded the federal gov't.
I speak of a peaceful one of course.
In terms of when a peaceful revolution becomes bloody, there is no rule of thumb.
I am hopeful that Article 5 would provide the best avenue to correct and reverse the onset of tyranny but given that the 3 original branches have been wholly compromised I am afraid that a peaceful solution is becoming scarcer by the day.
Thank you for your efforts in arguing for liberty and freedom
Surely if there were enough of a consensus, one could amend the Constitution to change the Presidency radically to remove its imperial aspects or limit the scope of the federal government precisely to the 16 delegated powers given to it.
There is no rule of thumb of when you can resort to violence.
There is an old phrase from a British poet, “Treason never prospers and what’s the reason? For if it prospers none dare call it treason.”
The essence of this one liner is if you are attempting to oust the government by violence, and you succeed, you’re a hero and if you loose you’re a traitor and you’ll suffer egregiously for it. I would think that one would have a moral obligation to try all legitimate reasonable moral practical means to change the government before one could resort to violence.
I mean violence denotes the destruction of innocence and destruction of property - all of which would be condemned except in the most egregious of circumstances, but it is contemplated by the inclusion of the second amendment which of course was not written to protect the right to shoot deer but to protect the right to shoot tyrants when they take over the government.
Do not misunderstand what I’m saying as advocating violence - but theoretically, the basis for its exercise is there in the two documents.
Semantics, some say, but important.
Only 13 out of 50 states ratified the constitution.
I said it had no legal standing in our current national system of laws. And that's true.
I hope I have a chance to see them.
In my mind, they were a doozy.
Can’t wait!
But my advice on this would be generally “yes.” Any lawful peaceful mechanism that can result in the reduction of the size and scope of the federal government is a step in the right direction. I am aware of the fears that people have of the Constitutional Convention.
The vast majority of states today find the federal government repellant and would happily ratify a new document. So, I see only good that can come of this.
If the new document is ratified by half the states the other half would suffer under the present one and would perhaps be free to leave the present one and go to the new. I can’t even figure out how this would work.
But all of this is a step in the right direction.
If it's not the popular thing to do then it takes a very, very, determined, almost radical, aspect of the population to move the rest of the population.
For example, there were no polls at the time of the American Revolution but it is the general understanding of most serious historians that about 1/3 of Americans were willing to tolerate life under the King and the Parliament, about 1/3 of Americans were willing to sacrifice their lives, liberty, and property to get rid of the King and Parliament, and about 1/3 didn’t care and would go either way.
This means that a determined band of about 1/3 was able to move the other 2/3. I think that that could happen today. I think the longer we wait the easier it will be because the more out of control the federal government will become.
Ideally you would want the federal government to be reformed in almost the way the old Soviet Union was - where even its servants and agents dropped their guns and shed their uniforms and ran into the welcoming arms of the rebels because they knew the government was unsustainable.
Given the fact that the government just keeps taxing more, printing more cash, regulating more personal liberty, and fighting more wars, it gets less and less sustainable with each tick of the clock.
Do you think it is possible that democracy - even a republican style representative democracy such as that provided for by our Constitution - simply doesn't scale?
Is it safe to say at this point that a nation the size of ours, growing in population every day, simply is ungovernable by a Constitution such as we currently have?
If you take the 535 members of US Congress each session since 1900, I’m adding the House and Senate together, and throw in the 10 or 12 Presidents we’ve had since 1900 (so you’re looking at the total number of occupants of the White House, House of Representatives, and the Senate in the 20th century and the first 15 years of this century) you’ll probably find less than 1 or 2 percent who are truly faithfully to the Constitution. That is the Madisonian version of the Constitution - the essence of which is not one that unleashes government but one that chains down the government to do only what the Constitution permits.
If the numbers were reversed. If you had 98, 97, or 96 percent that were faithful to the Constitution and only a few that were not we would not have this problem. Why do we have the problem? We have the problem because of what Jefferson warned about which is when the public treasury become a public trough and the public learns of it it [the public] will only send to Washington people that promise to bring home the biggest piece of the pie. Whether that pie is bailouts for the rich, tax breaks for the middle class, or welfare for the poor or corporatism - corporate welfare (a variant of bailouts for the rich).
The government will continue to reward those who keep it in power. Unless and until you have a critical mass of people in the government who are more faithful to the document to which they’ve taken an oath than to the love of power and office this will always happen.
When you can find people who love fidelity to their oath and to the document and love human freedom over power over other human beings we can return to a small-government-maximum-individual-liberty society which we haven’t seen in this country in the memory of anyone now living.
http://spectator.org/articles/39326/amer...
In it, Dr. Codevilla described the contempt which both sides of the political aisle (The Ruling Class) view the inconvenient taxpayers (The Country Class).
Dr. Codevilla's assertions were spectacularly borne out with the revelation of Dr. Jonathan Gruber's now infamous (yet mostly unreported) "stupid Americans" claims.
I often wonder if the D.C. beltway understands that its contempt for us is reciprocal and that, in many ways, they have irreparably damaged their trust with us in that stupid, stupid Country Class.
As you have much, much more experience with the D.C. beltway players and their mindset, in your opinion,
1) Do they realize this?
2) If they do realize it, are they concerned or do they dismiss it?
3) If they are concerned do they realize that they are fighting the will of the people and that history almost never remembers well the people who do so?
4) If they dismiss it, do they realize that people like me, and I'm sure others, are already referring to D.C. as Nouveau Versailles?
Thank you for taking the time to visit us here.
I look forward to placing your book on my stack of stuff to read.
Eudaimonia, (Rick)
There are no candidates consistently promoting a proper government, and they couldn't be elected if they did because the philosophy of the culture has evolved so far to statism. But it is possible for candidates to move the system back from the progressive statism we now experience in order to reform the philosophy, of the country which is all that ultimately can save us, and that will take generations. There is a lot the tea party movement can do that would help achieve that by buying time and heading off the worst from coming sooner, but not if it continues to be embarrassed by an anti-intellectual obsession with religion undermining elections, what is left of government, and a rational philosophy.
"Shrugging" for a mythical "Atlantis" will do nothing but hasten our own demise. There is nowhere to go to escape the progressively increasing statism that rules everywhere. The best you could do is find some area, most likely in this country, better than the rest in the hope of surviving longer. But any relative success, once noticed, will be the first to be attacked.
Regarding shrugging to Atlantis, who says we have to then be productive by current standards? We would need to produce only for ourselves. That amount could easily slide under the radar (pun intended).
There are limits on what you can produce in a small group, including advanced medical care. You can't hide even that much with ray screens and radar when you need a license for the spectrum you use, i.e., some kind of permission for almost everything, with everything monitored more than ever before (especially the wilderness the viros want locked up under Federal control). And considering your motives, puns are now the crime of "hate speech".
http://tricorder.xprize.org/
Can you expand on your concept of "natural yearnings"? How is this different than Locke 's natural rights and self ownership?
=> The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
=> Since the militia only include male CITIZENS, and not all people (who apparently retain their rights), and gender is not voluntary, that means citizenship must be voluntary. If citizenship was imposed at birth, mandatory civic duties become involuntary servitude.
=> If it is true that our consent to be citizens waives our right to life and liberty, it is futile to argue over the loss of other inconsequential rights such as those lost to national socialism (via FICA). . . rights such as absolute ownership of private property. . . you know . . .the stuff abolished by the Communist Manifesto.
Complaining about consent already given is as useful as a volunteer on a suicide mission, blurting out: "They want me to do WHAT?! - That could get me KILLED!"
Which raises the question: is fraud and misrepresentation the basis of "consent" used to govern Americans?
Is the legal profession a co-conspirator in depriving Americans of their endowed rights?
Load more comments...