18

Chilling words by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Posted by Non_mooching_artist 9 years, 1 month ago to Government
70 comments | Share | Flag

This is chilling, and should be the news story of precedence. Every action by the NSA is 100% antithetical to the Constitution, to the 4th amendment, to the very foundations of what the founders built.
This country needs men and women who are unafraid of these vermin. To rip out this cancer because it's killing what was once a beacon of freedom.
SOURCE URL: http://m.townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2015/02/12/a-worthless-piece-of-paper-n1956119/page/full


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by Ranter 9 years, 1 month ago
    The Patriot Act is set to expire on May 26, 2015. Let's see if Congress has the courage to let it die.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
      The msm will fan the flames of panic regarding national security. But they need to be ignored. Only rational minds can win this. There are few on the Hill.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 1 month ago
        "The msm will fan the flames of panic regarding national security."
        If the flames of panic approachs works with the public, the comeback should be this: Renew it with strict rules that it can only be used in cases of extremist who pose a threat to national security. Law enforcement will have to be careful if they accidentally use it to catch a kidnapper, drug dealer, common murderer, etc, b/c they won't be able to use any evidence they got through spying powers. They can only break out these powers against something like extremists trying to biuld a dirty bomb or something.

        This is all a game b/c the people who want those powers don't want them for one specific crime. Politiclaly motivated murder (i.e. "terrorism") are just a good way to sell more gov't power.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 1 month ago
    Judge Napolitano! Huzzah, huzzah!
    We are operating under tyranny. Politicians and Kangaroo courts are destroying the protections that are our natural birthright and enumerated in our Constitution... supposedly the highest law of the land. I hate to hear anyone say "there ought to be a law." But, we the people, need to have the power to arrest and prosecute those that undermine the Constitution. Throw out the bums!
    Run them out of town on a rail after tar and feathering.
    What is wrong with people? er... um, sheople apparently.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 1 month ago
    Napolitano is, as usual, perfectly right. So is NMA. Remember the panic of 911? Everyone was running around shouting "we have to do something, we can't let those bastards get away with this, they must be punished!" Hell, I was one of them. In the end, though, who got punished? We Did! Through hasty legislation and action, the ones that got hurt the most were ourselves. A good example of what happens when reason is subjugated to emotion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 1 month ago
      Pretty much dead on. However, the legislation was not actually all that hasty. It was all ready to go. Remember the Gingrich/Hart report on National Security and Terrorism that came out in early 2001 was calling for a new DHS to be created. All they needed was a crisis. So, just as the Obamacare abomination piece of legislation had been crafted for years in various versions - HillaryCare/RomneyCare - the DHS legislation in the "Patriot" Act was just waiting for the opportunity. Can't let good crises go to waste now, can we?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 1 month ago
        Exactly so. The powers allegedly granted by the Act came straight out of a DEA "wish list" dating from the Clinton administration, and in fact, those powers *have* been used a lot more in drug cases than in anything related to either terrorism, war, or espionage.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 1 month ago
        It did seem hasty, but you're probably right. However, it leads me to think about what other horrors are sequestered in the closets of the Libs to be dragged out during the next opportunity? It gives one pause.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 1 month ago
    We should realize that the real purpose of the NSA has morphed into protecting our government from us citizens who disagree with it. The government here wants to preserve itself against all threats
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 1 month ago
    That much surveillance, as nonselective as it obviously was, would not work to catch criminals, saboteurs, or mass murderers. You need leads. This wouldn't give you leads. It would give you dossiers on people in case you wanted to trump something up against them.

    And the agents writing their own warrants? The judge should know why that is never necessary. He remembers being on call twenty-four hours a day to approve warrants.

    Let's also remember how the people could stop sabotage and mass murder cold, if the government let them arm themselves.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 9 years, 1 month ago
    It is horrendous. But not very surprising. The Am-
    erican voters (by and large) deserve it. Because
    they insisted on voting in statist politicians who
    offered to give them the power to force their hands
    into other people's pockets. But those not old
    enough to vote do not deserve it. Well, we still
    have to fight.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 1 month ago
    I believe that both W and the congress at the time did what they did for noble reasons (yes, I may be that naïve). However, even nobly created laws can be twisted to nefarious purposes. This is certainly the case with the Patriot Act.

    As for Snowden, I was quick to state when it first came out that he would either be viewed as a true patriot, or a treasonous traitor. From what has come out that I can evaluate, I lean towards patriot, as does the Judge. Time will tell.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 1 month ago
      Exposing what the NSA is up to puts him in my A list. He has said that no matter what is done with him, others will follow. Sounds like something John Galt would say.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 9 years, 1 month ago
    There's a lot of confusion out there -- much of it deliberate -- about the NSA's capture of data. It is not surveillance, but the blind capture and storage of data from telecommunications servers. Computers scan and index the data, but no one is supposed to look at any of the data without a court warrant from the secret surveillance court. Once a warrant is issued, then they can have the computers search for and call up the data specific to the warrant.

    The problem is that people have looked at the data without warrants, and the additional problem is that the secret court gives rather blanket warrants.

    The data that is captured and stored could be extremely useful in solving crimes, in tracking terrorists, and in gathering actionable intelligence. The authorizing authority needs to be moved back into the regular court system, however, and the warrants need to be specific enough to produce court-admissible evidence.

    The programs that gather and index the data need to be written such that the computers will not allow access to the data without a court-issued warrant. I believe that would solve the problems that people see with the NSA system.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 1 month ago
    The major problem is the simple fact that we must be concerned with those who chose to do; not even interpret the rules; what they want when ever they want to. the other day we had the video of police in tenn. stopping people at a bogus lic. check point. when confronted with the 4th amendment these police had no clue what it even said. do you think 0 and b talk about the patriot act and how 0 can further what b started, probably. the wonderfully intelligent judge may clarify things for us but the other 95 percent of the country probably does not know of his existence. at what point will the great debaters who occupy the halls of congress step to the front to stop this destruction of the country? never. they will do what government always does try to correct its mistakes with more mistakes, obamacare is the perfect example. the number of honest people at this time makes the thieves in numbers almost not exist. so it is the honest people who are targeted. I would not be surprised to see everything just stop within 20 years. and of course the washington crowd will ask what is wrong we have given you all you asked for. yes and you have taken our freedom. if someone on television were to read Galt's speech it would either not be understood fall on deaf ears or not be heard at all.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 1 month ago
      Funny you should mention OBozzoCare. I got a canned phone call today telling me how cheap and easy it is to get on the government run health program. I think there may be some worrying going on about the dismal failure it is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 1 month ago
    President Jefferson in 1803 shred the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase (still commonly called by this name, but illegal under the Constitution and was, therefore, renamed to be a treaty). Every president since has sought to increase dictatorial power, building upon the shoulders of the preceding elected dictators. Nice system. Anyone see any flaws?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 1 month ago

      It would appear it wasn't Jefferson that shredded the Constitution but it was Congress. But moreover, there just was no provision in the Constitution providing for the acquisition of new territory. Shredding may be a bit of a harsh characterization when action was needed to protect the nation from a foreign threat (Napoleonic France on the Mississippi). Interesting piece of history.


      http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resourc...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by BobFreeman 9 years, 1 month ago
        Yes, VERY interesting. My understanding is that Congress has authorized Jefferson to purchase a bit of the area around New Orleans for $7,000,000 so that the USA could have control of the sea port that provided access to/from most of the interior country.

        Because of Napolean's great need of money, he offered a huge area that included land to or near tnear the Canadian border, an area that more than doubled the size of the USA at the time ... for $15,000,000. There was no way to contact Congress, no trans-Atlantic cable, no wireless technology, no long-flight carrier pigeons. Napoleon would not keep that offer open to wait for ships to cross the Atlantic twice, plus time for Congress to debate the issue. Jefferson accepted the offer, yes, unconstitutionally. Excellent decision, I think,.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 1 month ago
        The Constitution has a procedure for admitting new states, which is different when creating a state that includes part of an existing state (needs their approval) than when it doesn't. Obviously this implies the possibility of gaining new territory.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 1 month ago
          And as part of that procedure is the Constitutional Doctrine known as the Equal Footing Doctrine. This doctrine maintains that any new states admitted are done so on an Equal Footing with the original 13. Very interesting when considering the Enclave Clause (Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 17) and the supposedly "federal public lands" within a State.

          I know that the Equal Footing Doctrine is explicitly written into the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 and the Enabling Act of 1864 for my home State - Nevada.

          I wonder if the Louisiana Purchase Treaty has it in there. Oh, boy, more homework.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 1 month ago
        France was not a threat. It needed money for war in Europe, that is why the Emperorer made the deal --- which was illegal even under French law. While Congress was whimpy, it was Jeffy who consciously disregarded his oath of office in the usual politican grab for more influence (power). Quite disappointing for a founding father.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 1 month ago
          I don't think your characterization of Jefferson is accurate. From the article:

          But Napoleon had plans to re-establish the French empire in North America. In 1801, America learned that Spain had agreed to return Louisiana to France. Jefferson had always looked upon France as a friend in the world, but he knew this was a potential crisis. The new nation depended on New Orleans for its economic survival.

          Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 1 month ago
            They characterized it as a treaty only to get around the Constitution. They stretched from over substance. The substance was a purchase. It as this stretching and twisting that causes me to say Jefferson shred the Constitution. The other issues of the legality (or lack of it) on the French side are not relevent here.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 1 month ago
          Ask the people in Europe and Russia at the time if France wasn't a threat.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 1 month ago
            Exactly. France was a threat in Europe. That is why Bonapart needed more money. He could barely fight those wars and could not start a new one in the Western Hemisphere. Besides, France only owned the Louisana Territory for three weeks before selling to the US. Nonetheless, my overall point was politicians once in power seek to make whatever they control bigger and more under their authority.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 1 month ago
              I have no ambition to govern men; it is a painful and thankless office.

              Thomas Jefferson
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 1 month ago
                That is what they all say. But, his actions were to almost double the size of territory under his command. Which speaks closer to the truth? Besides, most of the good stuff he said was BEFORE he became president and partook of the elixor of power.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 1 month ago
                  So, peaceful expansion through Treaty is wrong? And why can't a Treaty involve a purchase?

                  I would be interested to see references to support your disparaging opinion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 1 month ago
                    The point, again, is not how the expansion is done. The point is that once in power, those who advocate less power will actually expand their power the best way they can. The book "The Dicatator's Handbook" explains this very well.

                    My information about Jefferson I unearthed by accident when researching for my upcoming historical novel: "If Abe Had Been Honest." I document the Louisana Purchase there.

                    Most domestic objections were politically settled. One problem, however, was too important to argue down convincingly: did Napoleon have the right to sell Louisiana to the United States?

                    The sale violated the 1800 Third Treaty of San Ildefonso in several ways. Furthermore, France had promised Spain it would never sell or alienate Louisiana to a third party. Napoleon, Jefferson, Madison, and the members of Congress all knew this during the debates about the purchase in 1803. Spain protested strongly, and Madison made some attempt to justify the purchase to the Spanish government, but was unable to do so convincingly. So, he tried continuously until results had been proven remorsefully inadequate.

                    Spain's argument that Napoleon did not have a right to sell Louisiana was explicated by the historian Henry Adams, who wrote: "The sale of Louisiana to the United States was trebly invalid; if it were French property, Bonaparte could not constitutionally alienate it without the consent of the Chambers; if it were Spanish property, he could not alienate it at all; if Spain had a right of reclamation, his sale was worthless."

                    The sale of course was not "worthless"—the US actually did take possession. Furthermore the Spanish prime minister had authorized the U.S. to negotiate with the French government "the acquisition of territories which may suit their interests." Spain turned the territory over to France in a ceremony in New Orleans on November 30, a month before France turned it over to American officials.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 1 month ago
                      This is interesting history, but easily distorted without references. Such as the site is, Wickipedia mentions the promise/pledge made by France in 1801. The problem with this as an impediment to legality is that it was not in the Treaty. Essentially under contract law, France could do what they wanted. Sure it may chap a hide or two, but that is nowhere near the level of breaking a Treaty.

                      Also part of the problem with this thesis is that Napoleon had taken both executive and legislative power in 1799. He could do what he wanted. Uncomfortably close to a certain Obummer today.

                      And apparently the transfer was made effective from Spain to France in October of 1802, and was actually signed into agreement in April of 1801. At least a year or more before transferring it to the United States.

                      So, all the machinations between France and Spain aside, none of this casts aspersions on Jefferson's presidency. It appears the two biggest political situations in his presidency was the Purchase in his first term and the Embargo issue in his second term. The Purchase makes absolute sense - don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Sure, there was nothing providing for this in the Constitution, but nothing preventing it either. While the later embargo issue may or may have not been a mistake or bad policy, it was duly passed by Congress - no usurpation of power here either.

                      I see nothing yet justifying characterizing Jefferson as a dictator. Napoleon, yes, Hitler, yes, Stalin, yes, Obama, yes, Jefferson - no.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 1 month ago
                        I never said, nor implied, Jefferson = dictator. My point was, and is, once a person gains power the person seeks to enhance that power. The other things I mentioned simply were to illustrate the point. The late Robert Le FEvre wrote about this, too, but the "Dictator's Handbook" is more recent.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 1 month ago
                          Well, the immediate reference to the "Dictator's Handbook" to support the thesis that Jefferson sought to expand his power as president - does just that - directly implies.

                          And go back to your original post, every elected president since Jefferson's "precedent" has sought to increase dictatorial powers.

                          Again, I think your characterization of Jefferson is off the mark.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 1 month ago
                          The problem that I see with your theory is that Jefferson really got no additional power from the purchase. The territory wouldn't be carved into states for decades after he was out of office. The resources were already being used by the settlers, regardless of who was the titled owner. There were no additional taxes collected. In fact, the situation of the states as they were before the purchase, and after the purchase were not changed one iota, nor was the power of Jefferson. So I'm not sure how you get that this was some sort of power grab by Jeff?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo