States Can Nullify Unconstitutional Federal Laws

[mozartgenetics]

I would love to think Mr. Napolatano is on our side but he works for a globalist network. That doesn't feel right to me. 

[7255202]

@mozartgenetics How else would he have any impact? How else would he be able to get his points out there? This guy is the only talking head i agree with more than 90% of the time.

[darkblood626]

When government grants power to itself you have tyranny.

When government power is limited to the power of an individual then there is liberty.

All government power originate from an extension of an individual’s right that’s why police use firearms to defend you because you can use fire arms to defend yourself if an individual cannot murder a free government cannot either. If you cannot do X nether can you’re government in a free country.

[7255202]

@darkblood626 This comment is awesome! im gonna have to copy and paste it somewhere it fits.

[MopDMTBARTL]

Vatican-Pope-Jesuits-illuminat­i-NAZIS-CFR (luciferian jews) run the world. All secret societies, organized religions ruled by an elite bloodline, same bloodline ruling from Egypt 2 Rome British (European) Empire - America Empire (1913 Fed Reserve. Presidents & King stand at whim of the real power which is the priest hood (Priests - Bishops - Cardinals - Pope) standing behind the throne - trying to form it's one world luciferian gov't.

truthknowledge. Com

truthknowledge. com/The_System. php

[seanrsk]

this needs to go viral does any one know how to get this message out there?

[atchisrj1]

I will not buy insurance now. The government has no right to force me to either. I would rather die then do as they tell me. Liberty or Death!

[macdogq]

This bill will only distroy american economy (which left of it anyway).

[wormer105]

Also keep in mind that no one told the government to pay for it. That isn't hospitals. That's GOVERNMENT.

[RazielKain]

Okay ... let's give you an example you can't put a "LIE" sticker on because I know it has happend

There is an "illness" which is easily CUREable by a little operation (removeing the gallbladder) if you don't do this the person will have chronic reoccuring pain

If you have it hospitals are forced to give you pain meds

They are not forced to remove your gallbladder which would CURE you for the rest of your life

[wormer105]

Raziel:

I have too and it is false. If it is proven then yes they have to help you.

Read as emergency care.

These are added to a "tab". A tab this is worthless if you can't pay anyway.

[RazielKain]

That's the point: You don't need the surgery to survive but it will cure you, you will never have any symptoms again

They don't have to do it

They treat your symtoms with pain meds and get you the hell out of there

[wormer105]

Raziel: The law states they MUST save your life. You can't be turned away.

If your life isn't in danger then you don't NEED the surgury.

[RazielKain]

Again: That's the point

They treat your symptons and wheel you out of there because you can't effort the CURE

Do you think that's fair?!

[wormer105]

Raziel: Whoever told you life was fair LIED.

[RazielKain]

Not only is it true

I have seen it

[wormer105]

No you haven't. Life isn't fair. You'll know when you grow up.

Yes I'm implying that you're a kid because I NEVER hear adults claiming that life is fair.

[RazielKain]

What? I never said life is fair oO you are twisting my words

[wormer105]

Raziel: "Do you think that's fair?! "

Fairness is only relevant to those who ask this querstion.

[RazielKain]

But shouldnt fairness be something we all should at least try to achieve? oO

[wormer105]

Raziel: Having others pay for something they get no benefit from is no more fair than the overdone issues you use.

So no. Achieving fairness shouldn't be a goal. We are guaranteed a fair trial. We're on our own for the rest.

[RazielKain]

You know what? I will write you a PM with my phone number

If you ever end up in a hospital and can't pay the bill and they wheel you out

Call me so I can laugh at you

[wormer105]

Raziel: That would be funny...if it were true. As it is you've been wrong at every point and now you're acting like you're right as you run away with your tail firmly tucked between your legs.

Have fun growing up.

[RazielKain]

You can put your fingers in your ears and go "nananana I cant hear you" all you want but one day you will open your eyes and see what the world is really like

If you don't have insurance nobody is gonna pay for you

[wormer105]

Raziel: I have proven you wrong and now you're angry.

I've seen the world as it is and have adapted.

You want someone else to adapt around you.

[RazielKain]

You haven't proven anything

all you do is saying "THAT'S A LIE"

you my friend are detached from reality

[wormer105]

I also backed it up. I PROVED it false.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain You seem to care a lot about people with no insurance. So why don't you try to convince other people to care about the uninsured like you do, instead of using the government to force free people to do what you want. Unless you're some kind of anomaly in mankind.

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend Do you have children? Let's say you have a child which didn't have that good of a live and struggled to get a job and the one it's got pays to less to effort insurance.

Turns out your child has MS or diabetes.and can't effort interferon/insulin.

Without the healthcare bill insurance companies can say "nah, you cost too much we are not taking you" and your child dies from a chronic illness which is treatable at the age of 35.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain No, I don't have kids. And instead of using some bullshit example, why don't you answer the question. Surely you're not the only person that cares about people, so why don't you convince people like you to give to charities that care for such problems, instead of using the government to force free people to do what you want. Unless you believe it's only the government bureaucrates that really care about people.

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend "What difference does it make?" Let's keep the example since it's realistic, would you say "NO, I don't pay for your children. They can suffer I don't care"?

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain The argument is not whether those in need would get help. It's where that help should come from. Yes, I would give to charity to help deal with such problems. I would gladly do so because it is my right to choose how I spend my money that I earned with my labor. It is not your right, to force me to spend my money how you want me to spend it through government force, i.e. taxation and government spending with the threat of prison for those that do not pay taxes.

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend Actually it is. The country you live in provides you with laws to protect you, police to enforce the laws, firefighters to aid you and now healthcare etc.

You have two choices. Accept the laws and taxes given to you and use the services they provide you or GTFO ^^

You elect the leader and he has to make the choices.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Sorry, this isn't Nazi Germany, the elected officials don't have unchecked power. The U.S. Federal Government is controlled by the U.S. Constitution. And if you knew anything about the United States, you would know that socialized healthcare, from a federal level, is unconstitutional.

Police and firefighters are legitimate services to be conducted by government, healthcare isn't.

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend Why? Is there a paragraph saying "Yeah you can provide police and firefighters but no doctors, who cares about sick people?"

Oh and stop invoking Godwin's law. Das Dritte Reich was a long long time ago.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain That's not the government's role. Classical political thought in the U.S. is derived from John Locke's writings. The government has a role to protect the citizenry's Life, Liberty, Health and Property. That's why the Police are a legitimate government role

Before you mention the term health, "health" is used in the sense that you have a right to not be injured just like you have the right to not be killed. It's an extension of the right to police, not for healthcare

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend Yeah and before you mention the term "Life" that doesn't mean you can life it means ....

You are defining terms the way you want. If the government has the role to protect the life of people their health is included

Interferon and Insulin for MS and Diabetes patients is included since not recieving it will mean death

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain If an armed population is as dangerous as an unarmed population, then why do communists, dictators and tyrants insist that their weapons be taken away?

And, as I already said, it's not important if the Nazis were left or right, I'm a capitalist, the Nazis described capitalism as exploitation. They supported social security, a just wage, and other social programs associated with being left wing.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Tyrants always rule in the name of the greater good. Economic equality, helping the poor, eliminating injustices. They are all pretenses to the real goal; power over society.

If there is one thing I can't understand about Germany. Is how a group of people can be so stupid that they completely misunderstand the meaning of something so important in history. You want to keep tyrants from gaining control? Decentralize, and check the power of your "elected".

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend First of all: Hitlers push had nothing to do with "decentralize" he overthrew the government in place which sounds a lot more like the right wing gun nuts you have over there

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Nazi stands for the National Socialist German Workers Party. That's left wing. Tyranny is neither left nor right. I do not care if the tyrant is right-wing, I don't want tyranny. I want decentralization and the recognition of individual rights

The use of violence is neither left or right. But as you would know, the Nazi government confiscated firearms from citizens following their rise to power. An unarmed population is one helpless against the will of the government

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend Actually Nazi is a short term for Nationalsozialisten and you meant the NSDAP National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and they were very very right

And you honestly think your puny little gun protects you if an army with tanks and nuclear missles marches in...yeah sure...

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Oh, and it did have to do with "decentralization" because after the Nazi Party gained controlled, they centralized their power.

And it doesn't matter if the Third Reich was a long, long time ago. The societal facors that caused their rise to power are still the exact same. And if you think "mankind" has learned from their mistakes, you're very, very mistaken.

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend So since the Third Reich centralized power, centralized power leads to the Third Reich? That doesn't even make sense

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Yes, only centralization allows a tyrannical power (not just the Third Reich) to mass their power from which a small group can control society. In Mein Kampf, Hitler says he will dismantle state's rights altogether, and national socialism, as a matter of principle, must lay right to force its principles on the whole german nation without consideration from previous federated state boundaries.

Only decentralization keeps a tyrant from forcing their ideology onto the free people.

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend So what?

The Third Reich brought highways to germany

so highways lead to tyrany? This has the same logic as your "Third Reich had centralization so centralization bringts the Third Reich"

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain

National governments are necessary, but they should only exist to fulfill the roles in which are rightly allocated to them.

Infrastructure is often legitimized by national governments as they are required in aiding the government with national defense (a national government responsibility). A nation with poor infrastructure will be less able to defend itself from invasion than one that has a well-built infrastructure.

That's a straw man argument anyway.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain The real question is whether infrastructure in smaller areas could only be provided by governments. If not, does the government provide the infrastructure better, and more efficiently than the market. No, the government is not the only one capable of providing an infrastructure and no, it doesn't provide an infrastructure more efficiently than the market would. There exist many sectors of the U.S. economy that compete with, and outperform the government.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain The replies are becoming excessive, mostly my fault because I want to provide thorough responses, but if you want to continue, send a private message.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Nothing? Oh ok.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Accept the law or GTFO? That sounds like freedom.

You show yourself for what you are; an intellectual lightweight. I'm so tired of dealing with people of such low intelligence.

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend You have the freedom to leave or to elect other people.

Just.... Tell me one logical argument against healthcare FOR EVERYONE?

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Did the Russian people have the freedom to leave? Did the East Germans have the freedom to leave? Did the Chinese people? No, a tennant of communism is the limitation of movement.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is nothing but tyranny by the majority. Limited Government is freedom. Classical liberalism is freedom, not democracy

I used Germany because I thought you would more easily understand it, apparently I gave you too much credit. You could use that example for any tyrant

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend Define freedom

Because the way you talk about it you seem to think that anarchy is the only way to be free

You used 3 countries which don't give the freedom to leave to their people yet you and I have it and that's not gonna change

Healthcare doesn't lead to tyranny

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Freedom is the right to be exempt from external controls, regulations, and interference. The biggest and most constant threat to a nation's individual freedom is their own excessive government

It's the government's role to protect the Life, Liberty, Health, and Property of its citizens

You have a right to not be harmed, you don't have a right to force someone else to help you when you are sick. That's a violation of that person's rights. That's how John Locke described it, not me

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend then by your very defnition any government enforcing any laws is not freedom

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Government enforcing laws beyond that allocated to the proper role of government violates individual freedom.

You keep misusing the political spectrum as if it's only left and right. It's also up and down. There is a left-right spectrum, but that goes from anarchy on the far right, and total government on the far left, despite whether it is Nazism, Communism, Socialism, or any other total government system.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain And if people feel that socialized medicine is right, that's up to the individual states in the United States to decide, not the federal government. Massachusettes already has a socialized medicine in that State. And you're right, people have the right to leave that state, or to go to that state. But when such programs are enforced by the Federal government, they do not have that option but to leave the country entirely. That's what centralization does.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain

You can only legitimate "healthcare FOR EVERYONE" by making the care a right. But healthcare is a good. There is a provider, the doctor, and the consumer, the patient. If healthcare is a "right" then the healthcare must be provided for free. If that is the case, then you are saying you have a right to my labor, since I must use my labor to provide the good. You do not have a right to my labor, only I have a right to my labor, and that which I lawfully obtain from my labor (money).

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend You are putting a price on a human life, on the quality of a life.

Yes, the people who spend years and thousands in and on med school need to be payed but you are saying that you don't deserve care if you can't pay for it?

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain I am not putting a price on human life at all.

The people who spend years and thousands in med school will only be payed what they demand when it also corresponds to what the patient is willing to pay. If either party charges too much or too little, the transaction will not take place.  Therefore for both parties to benefit, they must both choose a price in which both will benefit

Somebody can't pay for care, therefore you're going to force the cost on me without my consent?

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend You do realize that there is no such thing as a price where they both benefit

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain In a free market, every legal transaction is beneficial because both parties must consent to the transaction in able for it to take place. If one party is losing, and knows they are losing, then the transaction will not take place. We do it every day. You don't buy something when it's expensive because you don't believe that obtaining the good is more beneficial to your wants than losing the money. Therefore the potential tranaction does not take place.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain A beneficial transaction is not limited to money either. For example, if for some reason you have one sandwhich, but you are thirsty. I have one drink, but I am hungry. We can agree to trade the goods because we both believe the other good is more beneficial to our immediate wants than the good we have now

A market sells milk because it wants money more than the milk. You buy the milk because you want the drink more than the money

All transactions such transactions are beneficial

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Now in the case that one party is losing, but does not know he is losing, the transaction may still take place. But if he does not know he is losing because the other party withheld relevant information, that is fraud. In that case, it is the government's role to create a process by which the injured party can be compensated for their loss (Civil courts). Since fraud is also illegal, the government has the right to punish the perpertrator for their crimes (Criminal court).

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain In situations where no crime has taken place (no withheld relevant information), but there still exists a losing party that cannot be compensated for their loss (I.E. non-contractually obligated poor worksmanship or low quality good), the losing party will no longer do business with the provider. Logical people will only be fooled once in such a way. Therefore such scams are often short-lived, b/c a company with a bad rep will not survive long against those with good reputations

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Most people that obtain their wealth do so by providing something beneficial to the market. The same thing for big businesses. Although big businesses may have a great headstart over the competition, repeatedly failing to provide goods that the society wants at a price they are willing to pay will send any company into bankruptcy. General Motors was once the largest company in the world. That didn't stop their bankruptcy in 2009 while Honda, Toyota and VW flourished.

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain And if you make healthcare a right, then you must make food, shelter, clothing, and all other "necessary" goods a right. For if someone can't live without healthcare, then they certainly can't live without food, or shelter. Yet "free healthcare" advocates aren't advocating for the socialization of food supplies, housing, or clothing.

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend No but how about social security? If you worked your hole life but lose your job due to a crisis do you deserve to lose food, shelter, clothing and healthcare?

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Social security is a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is illegal when done by private citizens, but when it's done by the government, it's somehow legal. That alone should indictate a problem is social security.

Noneteless, people pay taxes for SS. If those taxes were removed, could those same people not save that money for their future? Why is it the government's job to take the people's money and "save it" for their own good? That's the responsibility of the individual.

[RazielKain]

@breakinthebend Because not everybody gets the same chance.

A child born into a rich family has a far greater chance to be rich or successful themselves.

A child born in poverty has nearly no chance whatsoever.

You are one of the richer ones you could have easily be a child which never got a chance. Shouldn't we ensure that every child at least gets food shelter and healthcare no matter where or in which class it was born?

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain Equality for everyone only goes so far before it violates the individual freedoms of one person or group. Equality under the law is the only true equality. Once you try to create economic equality, you are violating the rights of others. It's not the government's role to steal from one group to give to another in the name of equality

I am not rich and I was not born into a rich family. There are people that are rich for their whole lives. But they are a very small minority

[breakinthebend]

@RazielKain (Honda, Toyota, and VW flourished relative to the Big 3)

Food, shelter, and healthcare are not rights, they are goods. It is not the role of government to provide it to anybody.

Is government the only entity that exists to assist the poor? Are there not charities that do such work? Could not charities also do the work more efficiently than government due to the inherent problems in which all excessive government works?

[LowcountryJoe2]

Fairness and not liberty? Liberty is fairness for all, is it not? But it is certainly not for the weak-of-heart as it creates situation where one must earn.  Is this why you seem to disdain liberty? Maybe you're amongst the weak-of-heart?

[LowcountryJoe2]

Most likey the cure couldn't be afforded because there were shinier and more fun things to do with the limited resources within the budget: buying shoes and name-brand clothing, cell phones, fast food, flashy car, etc. Ceratinly getting an education and acquiring workforce skills was not high on the priority list so that more income could be earned. Is it fair that others that acquired the latter while foregoing the prior are now forced to pay for the poor choices of others? Think about that!

[LowcountryJoe2]

You really should become a physician and perform proceedures pro bono publico...since you care so much.

[RazielKain]

Oh yeah it's such an injustice that I have to pay health insurance so my maid may get drugs she needs to live

I mean I can always hire a new one if the other one dies!

If someone isn't rich and can't affort health insurance just let them die on the streets like they deserve

If you can't effort to go to a hospital you deserve death

That's the american dream! That whats our merciful god wants

-.-

[wormer105]

Raziel: Your sarcasm isn't warranted. In America dozens of private-sector entities render aid to those who need it.

These are payed via donations. People aren't dying in the streets and so any and all reasoning using this basis as a reason to take over healthcare is flawed at its base.

[RazielKain]

So you think health care for people who can't efford it in this system is responsibility of charity and donations?

I think a system where people depend on the generosity of others is a flawed system

Do you even realize the legal matters here?

Hospitals are forced to relief your life threatening symtoms NOT to cure you if you can't afford it

[RazielKain]

The are forced to save your life

NOTHING MORE

If you have an open broken bone they are forced to stopp the bleeding

They don't have to adjust your bone so you can walk again

[LowcountryJoe2]

An you're entitled to care, forcing others to treat you without compensation?

Look, if there's enough people out there that want to be generous and charitable with their own money -- and apparantly there are because there's enough of your type out there that just love to talk about how much they care -- then why don't you get together and provide the reourses so that the poor can be cared for? Or is it just easier to be an altruist with someone else's money?

[LowcountryJoe2]

Hyperbole much?

[yakyakyak69]

When the judiciary interprets law it is IN FACT making law and is therefore guilty of TREASON and TYRANNY!

The 1st & 2nd Amendments exist so that We, the People can NULLIFY the resulting Tyranny and maintain a Free State!

Living Constitution through Amendment NOT Activist judicial interpretation!

Keep your powder dry!

[deborahmouser]

Time to get serious and fight back by doing what he says: "nullify!" I never thought I would live to see the changes Obama has made in this country!

[jameskguy]

Thanks for posting a great video and discussion.

It makes a good point about fear of states and countries to lose their tax base.

I will consider moving to any of the states that will refuse the health care "laws" if it passes... and reward it with my tax dollars!

This might be a great opportunity for small states to plan ahead. Low population states would benefit with an influx to its populations. So, maybe they will see this as another incentive to resist this unconstitutional law.

[protester]

And counties, cities, townships, etc., can nullify the unconstitutional laws of the state! And the individual can nullify the laws of local government.

[anyusmoon1]

It's nice to finally see Gutzman. I have the book and highly recommend it to all: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

Judge- this is spectacular t.v. BRAVO! Can't wait to see Sheriffs take on their 'call to duty' as outlined by Richard Mack, this is a good start.

[praeeo]

Excellent video and I'm so glad to see Judge N on our side for all that is right. 5*s and fav'd and will send out as well. Thank you for putting this out for us to see.

[cdo4Jesus]

praeeo, thank you for sending this to me!  Awesome! We need more judges like Judge N. !

God bless!

[statesRcountries]

The solution is to nullify the 14th Amendment.

/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE

[Snowflake70]

I think this needs to go viral - - the more I see the Judge the more I like him. Not a big fan of Fox - it's always under fire - but the Judge is a square shooter and tells it like it is. The Tenth Amendment Center needs all the support it can get ! As an individual feels powerless they are residents of a State in the Union... A state has clout. Watch Texas and tell your state to follow suit. !

[CPSSucks]

Yes, he is a great judge, and one of the few who strongly opposes the filthy corrupt Child Protective Services.

[Snowflake70]

If you know of corruption - report it. It's how the system is supposed to work. That it exists is Totally Believeable. I personally have no knowledge so can't comment. I do know they've a very tough job at the very least. And yes, I do think they serve a vaid function - re: book vs. it's cover. Do your duty.

[Verlch]

@brockal

Tell everybody you know that US Senators are supposed be elected by the State legislator. Not the Useful Idiots.

I learned this several months ago.

Now all that happens is that the guy with the most money, and the most free press becomes a US Senator.

[Verlch]

No checks and balances.

Hey, shouldn't socialist health care be FREE??? wtfreak?

[CanadaLarry]

And where did they get the 1 Trillion Dollars to fund this new Law?

I know but I want you to tell me first...

[Verlch]

@CanadaLarry Borrow it from the Oligarchy, and tax us to death to get it back. Oh, and plus interest.

[superdave492]

@tkdmike you can be the first one on the bus. Flaming liberal commie idiot. There's NO WAY you know Jesus!

[darrellmellissa]

@tkdmike Your sick, commomn liberal sickness,see a mental doc. perhaps he can cure you.

[jacobew2000]

This is the thing that people today dont understand. While some government is necessary, what we have gotten is out of control spending. They just reported that just in the month of OCT 2009, had a higher deficent than all of 2007! That means that the democrats have now spent more money in 9 months than bush did in 8 years. This will destroy America!

[joe80dman]

@jacobew2000: That's their entire purpose. This is all by design to usher in a REMEDY at some future point. "Create order out of chaos". Now, if our state reps will only step-up and say, "NO, you won't", we can put the Feds back in their proper place.

[jameskguy]

jacobew2000:"This will destroy America!"

Sadly, I sometimes think that is their intent - be it the "elected", their advisors or both.