Judge Andrew Napolitano Q&A Part 2 of 2

[christo930]

You CAN be forced to take medication against your will in a mental hospital. A doctor can declare you incompetent and force you to take medication against your will. (Not that I think that this is a good thing) Just saying..

BTW, where is the missing part between part 1 & 2 of this video series?

[etsneroj]

I agree with the judge that marijuana should be legal, but for someone who respects the constitution so much, it is odd that he would condone a state like New Jersey legalizing marijuana for all purposes. Such a law would be blatently unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with federal law making marijuana an illegal controlled substance.

[christo930]

@etsneroj The problem with your argument is that the federal gov has no constitutional authority to make Marijuana illegal in the first place. Why do you think it took a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal, but not drugs (alcohol, by any definition is a drug)?

[etsneroj]

@christo930, I understand your point. As a matter of constitutional law, however, there is no "but Congress overstepped its authority" exception to the Supremacy Clause. Even if a federal statute is not constitutional, until it is revoked or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it is the law of the land and states must yeild to it. And for good reason: The union wouldn't survive if states could unilaterally decide which laws are valid and enforceable. That's what courts are for.

[christo930]

@etsneroj So you think the federal government should be the arbiter of it's own power? State nullification or jury nullification are both legal and practical methods of overturning unconstitutional laws.

[etsneroj]

@christo930, I think you underestimate the indpendence of the judicial branch. The Supreme Court is not a "rubber stamp" for Congress. They overturn federal laws all the time. Because the Courts are truly independent (part of the constitution's genius) the federal government can "police itself" in a way that most organizations and governmental bodies cannot. Anyway, it does not matter what "I think" should be the case. This is the system we have under the constitution.

[christo930]

@etsneroj You're joking, right? The 9 justices on the supreme court are appointed by the president and ratified by the congress. I am not a lawyer nor do i have any law knowledge, but from what others have said and things that I have read, the original purpose of the supreme court was to resolve disputes between the states and state law.

[etsneroj]

@christo930, I am a lawyer and you are mistaken. The president nominates them, the Senate ratifes the nomination, and then they have life tenure with no obligation to ever appease any person or political constituency. That is why they are so independent. One of their main tasks, recognized since 1803, is to decide the constitutionality of state and federal laws when they are challenged in actual cases. Right now they are deciding whether Congress had the authority to enact "Obamacare."

[christo930]

@etsneroj What was their original (pre-1803) responsibilities as it was set up in the constitution? Do you not believe in concepts of Jury or state nullification?

[etsneroj]

@christo930, Their responsibilities were always the same, but it wasn't until 1803 with the case of Marbury v Madison that the Court held that the court's task of reviewing the constitutionality of challenged statutes followed necessarily from Art. III. Jury nullification is interesting (haven't given it much thought). State nullification is a dangerous idea: a classic example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[christo930]

@etsneroj Well, any way that we can end this horrific war on drugs is OK with me. Medical marijuana is now legal in a number of states and the fed gov is throwing sick people in prison because of this. If the states decide that they are simply not going to enforce the drug laws, the fed would have to give up. TBH, I don't think there is a baby in the war in drugs, it's all just dirty bath water.

[etsneroj]

@christo930, I'm all for ending "the war on drugs" and I don't have a problem with state "medical marijuana" laws as a policy matter. As a legal matter, though, they are unconstitutional because they conflict with federal law. That said, if there were a referendum, I'd vote for legalization.

[christo930]

@etsneroj Fair enough. Would you, if you were a Judge on a court that could overturn the federal law as unconstitutional, would you do it?

[etsneroj]

@christo930, Maybe if I were a supreme court justice, but as a lower court judge I'd be bound by prior cases in which the constitutionaly of federal drug laws has been upheld. Like the pending Obamacare case, one of the key issues is whether Congress can use its authority to regulate "commerce" to ban substances. The difficulty is that "commerce" can be read narrowly or expansively, and Congress has relied on it for so long to justify so many statutes, that it is hard to reverse.

[christo930]

@etsneroj It's not commerce, it's regulate, which meant something completely different and the intention was clear (then) that it was to keep states from erecting barriers like tariffs. Under the current use of the commerce clause, the fed gov can regulate ANYTHING for ANY reason. If you were to paint your house, the fed gov could come in and regulate you and say that you are indirectly affecting interstate commerce. There is no "direct" interstate commerce to produce and consume locally.

[etsneroj]

@christo930, Basically, I agree with you. Congress has read it so broadly that its virtually no limitation on Congress at all. That said, the more you read the cases, the more you realize that the limitations of the commerce clause are not clear. They are ambiguous. That's why the courts have struggled to find a sustainable consensus on the issue. The Obamacare case currently before the Court is likely to make some waves in this regard.

[christo930]

@etsneroj Lets hope the supreme court does better later on when there are new justices

[DivinityBleu]

AMEN to the question at 4:50!!!!

[whipid20]

Wish he was running for President. He'd have my vote for sure. But, if he's not running, Ron Paul will suffice.

[63gstone]

I think he was talking about Lincoln when he mentioned the worst President in US history.

[qwezzie]

i agree with this man but, i dont think the states own anything..in reality it all belongs to the people of the state

[lucretiuscaro]

God bless you.

[dhedricks]

FreeTheNation, thank you for posting these sections of his speech. I am wondering about the 1st Q&A also? Who was he referring to as the "worst US President ever"? LOL I hope he can get people to wake up that if you jump Dem or Rep you are choosing your evil. Choose the Constitution and representatives willing to uphold it!

[FreeTheNation]

@dhedricks -

I believe he is referring to Abraham Lincoln as the worst ever President. The Judge HATES Lincoln for what he did to the United States and the Constitution. Many Libertarians feel that slavery could have been ended by economic measures and not with the loss of over 600,000 American Lives and the destruction of our country and our Constitution. Many constitutional experts feel that the 14th Amendment was never ratified and that it created a constitution within a constitution

[FreeTheNation]

dhedricks -

Many Libertarians believe that the slaves could have been purchased for a FRACTION of the price of the war and set free. It's interesting to note that African slaves were freed all over the world, with non-violent measures. Even Lincoln stated that the slave issue had NOTHING to do with the matter. It's not my field of expertise. However, I have found proof that the 14th Amendement was never properly ratified..going back to a US News and world report from the 50s

[FreeTheNation]

@dhedricks -

I'll conclude with MY OPINION of the worst ever american President. FDR.

In my honest Opinion, Roosevelt was one of the most horrible men to EVER be in power of ANY country.  He Destroyed America, He was a CRIMINAL and he should have been put in prison for his crimes. He tried to bribe and coerce supreme court judges, he punished children of Republicans by forbidding them aid, he was a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE PERSON...

I hope he is Rotting in HELL for what he did to this country

[TheASEmaster]

@FreeTheNation Or maybe Woodrow Wilson

[FreeTheNation]

@TheASEmaster

Yeah....He's on the top 2 for me, personally.

I am less educated on Wilson than FDR....

[MisterMillz01]

@FreeTheNation

Atleast Wilson regretted his actions after, and it wasnt really his fault anyway. He just happened to be president when the banks engineered the first economic collapse, and created the Federal Reserve. He didnt want the Fed, he was forced into it. You guys should search zeitgeist federal reserve. Or just watch the whole Zeitgeist series.

[Freemasonry]

Judge Andrew Napolitano is my hero!!

[donwood777]

Which President of the United States did he assign as the "worst?"

[DrMayte]

I was going to guess Woodrow Wilson, but I have no idea. I would also like to know.

[andrewbsheets]

PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RUN

[shedininja001]

what about flu shots? Those are law...?

[sail1993]

In my state, Massachusetts, if the governor declares a "pandemic" then yes the police can break down your door, forcibly vacinate you and your family. They can declare your home to be 'infected', then they will come in and disinfect it and then send you a bill for it.

[FreeTheNation]

THIS is why we must fight. Government ALWAYS takes a principle that started with a good purpose: A true medical emergency could threaten civization.

Then they EXPAND upon it until there are DUI checkpoints at every block to "make sure you are "SAFE". We the people need to put these politicians and government officials in a box that is so TIGHT that they can't make a move without our say so

[jgillcustoms]

@shedininja001

It is not required to to be inoculated for any illness by law. It is required to have your children inoculated to attend public school. You do have a choice(very restricted in sates controlled by unions, particularly teachers unions) to home school however.

[bjarnet3]

Paul/Schiff 2012"

[whydoesmycelltorment]

downsizer dispatch has a link to sign the petition to read the bill.

[NSResponder]

I'd love to see him run for President, too. Ron's not likely to run again.

-jcr

[FreeTheNation]

Ron Paul can still run. I got a chance to meet him and he is sharp as a knife and full of energy. Age is merely a number

[NSResponder]

I wish he would, but when he's asked if he will he says he has no such plans.

-jcr

[Vunks2000]

The people will look down on his age, it isn't right but its what is going to happen.

Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, or the Judge would be an equal substitute for Ron.

[myY0UTUBEchanneI]

he's a good man