GOOGLE "BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION LEWROCKWELL". The SCOTUS KNEW there was nothing in the 14th amendment that gave the Supreme Court the authority to outlaw segregation nationwide. I'm against forced segregation on ANY level of government. But if the Supreme Court can ignore the Constitution with segregation, it can ignore the Constitution with anything.
Tom woods in the 5 seconds he gets to talk is good defending himself and the jeffersonian view of the constitution. i was listening to this video yelling at the host to stop going to neil the entire time, and to give mr woods some time to talk.
You don't agree with federal healthcare? You are a racist...... This is why I stopped listening to NPR. Liberals don't want to be inconvenienced to take care of their neighbors and have more of a localized life. They want to have the government steal from you and force you to be charitable, Why? Liberals wouldn't be charitable otherwise.
Tom obviously got shafted on this exchange. He rather got an opportunity to express his view first, and sometimes never got his chance to express the opposing view at all. Typical.
God, this is nothing but a flurry of attack the author fallacies. Mr. Siegel is repeatedly making arguments that amount to "well if you're for states' right of nullification, why weren't you before?" - That is not a counter-argument you idiot!
Treaties are only valid when pursuant to the constitution. The key work being "pursuant". We find that treaty law can not alter the constitution. So to look for justification for nullification with inthe constitution is rediculous. Almost as rediculous as justifying everything you want to do under the taxing power. Talk about a stretch. I like thguy who said "I'm no expert in law, but I know if you force me to buy something that is not freedom." There's the diff. between knowlege and wisdom.
Why would Neil Siegel expect the principle of nullification to be expressed in the constitution? The point of nullification is that the states created the federal gov't and so they have the authority to determine its proper parameters. He asks if treaties can be nullified. Well, yes they can. The World Trade Organization is a perfect example. It transfers power to regulate trade from elected congress to unelected international agencies without having amended the constitution properly.
this "debate" was an absolute disgrace, dr. woods didnt get any chance to respond to the nonsense spouted by mr. siegel or really answer any of the callers as the host or moderator or whatever you want to call him went to siegel after every single caller basically
Oh my, how frustrating! Knowing Tom Woods, he has an answer for everything Siegel says. But, of course, the host doesn't give him enough time to even begin to respond to his opponent. Siegel simply regurgitates the mainstream propaganda and gets away with it--because Woods isn't allowed to have enough time to respond.
@BerlinPhilfan94 Absolutely, this is a very underhanded host, who willfully directs the "debate" to shut Woods out and give him no adequate time to reply. You're right; Woods has a definitive response for every point, but he's given no time. What do you expect from Public Broadcasting? They're totally biased and unable to hide it.
bingo...the 2nd caller had it...though she didnt know it....more gov. healthcare...more restrictions 2 individual rights...yeah black dude...people are against healthcare reform because obama is black...must also be the reason they were against the hillary clinton healthcare reform bill
I guess we can't have states rights because it "evokes memories of racism". Yup, can't follow the constitution cause it might make some people uncomfrtable at the NAACP. And they call this guy a "legal scholar"?
@knightschwartz@knightschwartz That's right, state rights invoke memories of racism, as do water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants, buses, schools, ropes, trees, pick-up trucks, voting... So, don't use any of those things, otherwise you're a racist.
So, basically Siegels argument boils down to: Well we've managed to do all this other unconstitutional stuff thus far, so there's obviously no legal reason not to do this too.
My Woods was completely ignored every time he spoke. The rest just talked about Republicans, or conservatives, or racists, or anything else except for what Woods was saying. Thomas Woods Jr. was the smartest person in the room. This is a perfect example of Interview with a Zombie.
My Woods was completely ignored every time he spoke. The rest just talked about Republicans, or conservatives, or racists, or anything else except for what Woods was saying. Thomas Woods Jr. was the smartest person in the room.
Woods was amazing, almost too gentlemanly not to interrupt. Everything Woods said was completely ignored. Everyone else just talked about Bush, or conservatives, or something completely different from what Woods just said. You know what? This is a classic example of Interview with a Zombie!
We are allowed to opt out of medicare? SInce when? Or was the caller saying that we should pay into it all our lives than not use it out of principle? lol
We are allowed to opt out of medicare? SInce when? Or was the caller saying that we should pay into it out lives than not use it out of principle? lol
@frank1es1 She said she'd "like them[the states] to opt out of medicare also." When you opt out of something, you DON'T pay into it. What's wrong, comprehension and logic not a part of your skill set?
Jews like Siegel have always used their intellect to enhance the power of the state. It's a shame they don't remember that it was an omnipotent state - Nazi Germany - that tried to wipe them off the map. Jews have proved themselves over and over again as "useful idiots." That's how the Left views them and that's how Trotsky, himself a Jew, viewed them.
@vince33x As I am sure an individualist like Dr. Woods would tell you saying things like " jews always..." is anthetical to a libertarian way of thinking and reinforce the attitude of those who would dismiss us as bigoted kooks. This is about political philosophy and constitutional theory. Religion has nothing to do with it. To paraphrase another jew--Ayn Rand, about racism, believers in liberty can never be racist( or antisemites) because to us all is about the individual--never the group.
@sleedolfine15 Please explain to me how pointing out facts is in any way antisemetic. It is a fact that almost 80% of Jews voted for the most Left-Wing Presidential candidate in more than a generation. Jews dominate the very anti-Individualist ACLU; 80 to 90% of the folks in media, in poll after poll, ID themselves as Liberal or Left-of-Center, & the media is clearly dominated by Jews. And yet, Jews control 22% of the SA's wealth while they r only 2% of the USA's population.
@sleedolfine15 Indeed, Jews represent 138 of the Forbes 400 richest people in the USA - again, they r only 2% of the USA's population. Do Jews not understand how wealth is created or r they so guilt-ridden for having achieved it? And, if so...why?
Led by Trotsky, Jews dominated the Bolshevik revolution in Russia...leading to a Century of misery 4 about a third of the world's population.
I want 2 know why so many Jews have this almost pathological love affair w/Collectivism?
@sleedolfine15 Do Jews have any understanding of the slaughter - including their own - that collectivism has led to? Do Jews not understand that Hitler - as all fascists are at their core - was a collectivist?
I'm trying 2 figure out why this group, which has gained more under freedom tan any other group in history, is at the vanguard of almost every group in the USA which is trying to destroy it.
@sleedolfine15 I suggest you search what Ayn Rand, a racist, had to say about her Arab cousins. I suggest you look towards libertarians of the Mises Institute and the philosophy of Rose Wilder Lane.
@kusari86 Rand was'nt a racist. She did not have a racial or ethnic hatred of arabs,but she hated all authoritarian,anticapitalist antitechnological civilizations--including the country from wence she escaped( the Soviet Empire) . She loved individualism,reason and technology. Consequently she preferred Israel--as do I,as more liberal and advanced than the arab world. I'm personally a libertarian & I know & love Mises well. As for Rose Wilder Lane,I'm presently reading her DISCOVERY OF FREEDOM.
@kusari86 Rand a racist? lol. From the AR Lexicon - "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."
@mpc91 He was a great Jew and a great man. Why are so many Jews on the FAR LEFT - 80% of Jews voted for Obama. Jews have been voting Left-Wing for at least a century. Every Jew in Congress is a Left-Winger. Almost every Jew in the media is a Left-Winger. Hollywood, which wields tremendous influence, is wholly owned by Left-Wing Jews. Our economic meltdown was brought about by Jews: Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, et al.
@mpc91 The question I asked was why are SO MANY Jews on the Left. Only blacks are on the Left more than Jews. So why so many Jews residing on the Left side of the political spectrum?
Smart people have a problem discarding bad ideas, because they can defend the bad ideas against possible opposition because it is rarer for them to run into formidable opposition. I think the Jews are sort of caught up in a self-induced lock into leftism, firstly, because they are culturally segregated and because on average they tend to be smart people.
@utubehayter Well, Jews make a huge mistake vilifying Capitalism, especially since their lot has improved more under Capitalism than virtually any other group. As I've noted elsewhere, Jews are only 1.9% of the USA's population yet they control 22% of the USA's wealth; Jews are also 138 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans - an astounding 35%! Yet they remain at the vanguard of almost every Left-Wing group in America. They dominate the major media and not surprisingly, the major media
@vince33x is extremely Left-Wing. They also dominate TV and Hollywood, which are also extremely Left-Wing. I don't think being on the Left is a very smart position to be in because the Left's (and by definition, most Jews) policies are bankrupting the USA. When the collapse occurs, people will be looking for scapegoats and they will single out Jews because of their wealth.
The definition of left is confusing.. I wouldn't be surprised if they have some sort of hybrid understanding. After all even Mises, considered himself to be on the Left.
@utubehayter The Left, which controls most of the communications apparatus: Most media, TV, Hollywood, and the Academy have, by design, obfuscated the meaning of what it is to be Left or Left-Wing or Liberal. If people truly understood what the Left is and what it's for, the Left's following would be greatly diminished. The Right doesn't have near the communications apparatus: FOX NEWS (but it's really middle-of-the-road), Talk Radio, some opinion mags (Nat'l Review; Weekly Standard, Reason) and
@vince33x some Think Tanks (CATO, Heritage< Manhattan Inst., Hoover Inst., etc.). The Right's communications reach is dwarfed by the Left's (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, TIME, NEWSWEEK, NYTimes, LA Times, WASHPOST, and on-and-on...). That the Right is as effective as it is is proof of the power of its message compared to the Left's, which is the message of the dominance of the STATE, where the individual is subjugated and subordinate to the STATE. Remember the Fascist mantra (which could just as
@vince33x easily be the Socialist mantra): Everything for the State, of the State, and by the State. The followers (not the leaders) of the Left are, for the most part, blindly oblivious to what the Left really wishes to achieve, which is the TOTAL STATE.
The old meaning of left, was the total opposite of a total state. This is why I tend not to put too much credit in the term itself. It has gone full circle and come around to mean anything you want it to mean.
But this is true on the Right as well. The right too is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, liars, obfuscators and have their own agenda which would never be tolerated if they put it out in the open.
@utubehayter No it it isn't, listen to talk radio, the hosts and guests don't engage in vagaries. Ron Paul, the ONLY RIGHT-WING candidate left in the race (the other two were Herman Cain and Gary Johnson) has been very specific in the plans he would enact if elected President, including cutting $1 TRILLION from the Federal Budget. If Ron Paul were treated even remotely fairly by the Left-Wing media he would have even more support than he enjoys today. He is largely ignored because the powers-
@vince33x that-be are terrified of his message of real Individual Liberty, which would mean the end-of-the-line for millions of government hacks. U have to remember, gov't workers are the most worthless form of humanity on earth and they are desperate to cling to their cushy way of life - all at taxpayer expense.
Is that so? Hmm.. so Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck all are not right wingers at all? Do you really think I haven't heard them talk? Gee.. All of them have condemned Ron Paul as kooky too.
If you want to define the right wing as narrowly as Ron Paul, then okay, you may have a point. But, this cannot be done. Unless you want to allow a left winger like Mises to be the standard bearer for the Left as well.
@utubehayter The problem w/issues about who's Right and who's Left is that the terms have been deliberately confused for so long. But you have to think rationally about the terms for them to have any true meaning. If Mises thought of himself as a man of the Left, I'd love to hear his explanation as to why - but I can't talk to the dead. Ultimately, Right and Left gets down to how you view the role of government - Less in one direction, more in the other direction.
The reason he thought of himself on the left, because the idea of respect for individual is a concept that came from the original left (Bastiat). Along with it came social-collectivism too (Proudhon). But on the right, there was only (monarchic) absolutism and theocratic collectivism.
I listened to this to hear a reasoned debate on the use of nullification, and all I heard was 32 minutes talking about "lawlessness" and "racism," with Tom getting about 4 minutes to argue his case...
Also, his argument for the Constitutionality of Obamacare on the basis of social security is absurd. Social security was only found constitutionality because it was argued that it was not insurance---it was a tax combined with a pension. If you look at the relevant case law, you will see that while it was sold as insurance that was not the line taken before the court. As such, social security is no precedent for obamacare which cannot be broken up into a tax and a pension like that.
Did the Republicansdo a lot of bipartisan stuff with Clinton when they were in the minority? Does this guy think the Republicans would be obstructing a libertarian or republican president who was black? Why did the Republicans make a black man the chairman of their party if they are all racists?
Niel Siegel's arguments are nothing but poisoning the wells and ad hominems. So what if people who agree with Tom are not consistent---that is not Tom's problem. So what if the South used these ideas; that does not necessarily make them wrong. He needs to argue directly. And what does he cap his argument off with? An ad populam---The magical men in black won't agree with you.
This isn't a debate...this hardly counts as an exchange. It's two guys blathering about the wonders of central planners stopping to let Woods occasionally interject.
I don't know how many times. At least 5 or 6. The liberals in this debate (which is everyone but Thomas Woods and a few callers) keep bringing back up "racism" "confederacy".
Very one sided "debate". You'd think Tom would have gotten a chance to respond to more than 10% of the questions but hey, at least they let him on the air. Koodo's to NPR for prooving to be zombies after all!
I like the magical leap of logic that, given states can apparently not handle healthcare (that is, provide socialized healthcare, rather than dealing with whether the government ought to provide healthcare at all which is the real question which Siegel conveniently ignores), that owing to the ability of the states to not satisfy such a need the federal government should intervene. Precisely who is deciding that the response is inadequate? All he seems to do is repeatedly beg the question.
This was one of the most infuriating "debates" I've ever listened to. The bias in favor of Siegel was unbelievable! Woods hardly got to speak, and when he did he about had to break into the conversation. Boo on that! Whatever happened to a fair and balanced discussion on the merits of the issue? As for Siegel's pov, he keeps ranting that no FEDERAL court would uphold the case for states' rights. Duh. That's precisely the point! Woods addresses this, but his reply just gets glossed over. Grrr.
Wow, the degree to which the host favors Neil Siegel is simply beyond belief. He doesn't even ATTEMPT to come across as even-handed when it comes to dealing with his two guests. As another commenter noted, it should be called the Neil Siegel show.
Tea Party types, Patriots, Libertarians, and Paleo-conservatives like Woods, are looking at the Healthcare bill, and others, from a more skeptical perspective than the media is willing to accept. A perspective that expects the ruling class and their 2-party dictatorship to abuse the people whenever possible. They often come off as kooks in the media, because they're focused on what's hidden below the surface of these bills, not the red herrings left for the sheeple on the surface.
Woods came off terribly bad in this interview/debate. I may agree with him but in truth he needs to get beyond simply stating he is a Jeffersonian as if that were some magic talisman.
@MarcusCMarcellus Couldn't disagree more. The law professor does nothing but spout cliches. Woods talks about Virginia's ratifying convention, the use of nullification by northern states, the way the federal drug war harms blacks, etc. That's not exactly an "I"m a Jeffersonian" tantrum to my ear.
And he needs to mention Jefferson's name as much as he can in order to detoxify nullification, which these people all think was devised by the wickedest of the wicked.
That "Seigel" reminds me of that character from Lord of the Rings that wanted the ring and the power that goes with it. It was the character that die at the end by holding onto the ring as it took him into the burning lava. Let go of the ring Seigel, let go of the ring of power. :-) Long live Mises!
Why did they even bother to have Tom on if they weren't going to let him speak? Tom Woods kicks ass, but uh, you might learn more from him if you listen to interviews where they actually allow him to talk.
Man....they really railroaded Tom on this one. I didn't measure it, but he must have had 10% of the time for himself while Siegal got 30-40%. Unfair and Unbalanced.
Neil Siegel was pretending to be ignorant an awful lot. Particularly in regards to the controversy surrounding the Commerce Clause. It makes me sick to hear so many people trying to turn this into a matter of Republican v Democrat. ...and whether or not the advocates of States Rights are legitimately principled, or closet-bigots.
The debate is supposed to be about RIGHTS — not about SHOULDS.
Siegel is a typical idealogue with no grasp at all of what the fuck he is talking about. Obama drone,Democratic party hack, he cannot debate the issues without polticizing them and demonizing any contrary thought.
hahaha! you can hear Tom Woods gasp in horror at Siegel's statement that any talk of nullification is talk of lawlessness. it's right around 34:00 or thereabouts.
Taxing power?!?!?! So the federal government can dictate behavior through taxation in any manner it pleases? It could make a $1,000,000 tax for failing to vote for the Democratic Party?
Liberals are grasping for straws when it comes to the Constitution. Their only defense is, "Well that's how we chose to interpret it"
Woods really should have spoken up because everything that dude said was clearly absurd. "Siegel, what is your side?" "Lets go to a caller so Woods can't address your response..."
You have to love how Seigel keeps coming back to this insane notion that because no SCOTUS justice would endorse a particular interpretation of the Constitution, that interpretation is incorrect. Good heavens, does he think the Supremes are an infallible oracle? What about Dred Scott? It was exactly because the Supremes are not judicial Popes that you need nullification.
The best part of the interview is Woods, "Uh!!?" at ~33:57, following Seigel's statement, "I don't like any talk of Nullification... because it is talk of LAWLESSNESS." W/ a better mic, I think we would have heard woods' hand slapping is forehead. This is the epitome of the old saying, "It is difficult to see things clearly when your salary depends on not seeing things clearly."
@WeThinkWereFree Well put. By Siegel's logic, it seems that it would be lawless to nullify a fugitive slave law that deprived a man of his right not to be someone else'e property. Where did Duke find this guy?
I guarantee you if there is another large war then the federal government will undoubtedly bring back the draft. If there is no such thing as nullification then you have no citizen can legally disobey when the federal government passes such a law. So look the federal government can set a precedence to do good things (civil rights act, etc) but they can equally do harm with the same precedent.
This is why I hate NPR. Out off a 37 min show, Woods got 8.5 mins of talk time. What a sham. Siegel is your 'A' typical progressive elitist wonk. It was frustrating to listen to, because everyone knows the position of the Progressive but not everyone knows the true historical record that Woods was trying to get across. Oh and I love Siegel's evoking judicial mob rule as some kind of moral justification for trashing the Constitution and the Founders vision for a free society.
Of course the Fed govt, including SCOTUS, will NOT support nullification. Duh. But this law 'scholar' can't even recognize that nullification is about state action. 'Nullification' was never a means by which states appeal to the federal courts. It's going to get ugly, because I can guarantee the Tea Parties & millions more who haven't even attended a tea party yet are NOT listening to constitutional law scholars to form their opinions about whether the federal govt has overstepped its bounds.
NPR at it's finest... repeating a point over and over instead of addressing counter-points made and creating straw man arguments instead of debating the merits of the opposition's initial arguments.
NPR itself IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Does anyone expect NPR to promote valid constitutional arguments?
Sounds like they gave Tom about as equal time to talk as they did Ron Paul in the debates. I wonder if the NPR lovers caught that, or even better, have an issue with it.
NPR...pseudo-intellectuals desperately rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic known as the Federal Government. It is too costly and too intrusive and is sinking because it has struck the iceberg of LIBERTY!
After listening to this very one-sided discussion, I have become a Thomas Wood fan....he is an eloquent scholar who substantiates what he says...a tremendous spokesperson for the libertarian ideas that are sweeping this nation.
@timothybevin I agree; and the funny thing is that most people don't realize that "RealID" was nullified by the states in 2005. If it wasn't we'd all have national id cards now.
I don't think Tom Woods can be faulted for not speaking up...the crummy host was trying to stack the deck directing the Q's to that moron statist. At one point the host was going to leave Tom out on the racism issue and just let that moron have the definitive word and Tom interjected...the other guy NEVER had to interject once.
Needless to say Mr. Woods made an excellent stand, I wish it were more of a debate and less callers though.
Siegel is an deceptive, evil bastard. He and his ilk are what's destroyed this country.
And make no mistake, there's no turning back with the idiots we have in charge. This country's done in less than a decade, probably in less than 3 years.
But the question is off base on car insurance. You are required to have insurance to drive on public roads for that reason. There are private hospitals, and doctor do run private practices. And your health is a private matter.
The first caller says, on States rights: "It just doesn't bode well for the well-being of all citizens." Then doesn't explain himself. The second caller is also against States rights.
Maybe the reason we're seeing a rise in State's rights awareness is because it's naturally going that way.
You can't force people to change.
It's funny how the liberal mind claims open-mindedness unless it goes against their "religion."
I love how thomas woods got all of about 47 seconds to speak during that video and that other moron went on and on spewing verbal sewage into the air. Npr is just awful!
I've been going through the npr sites comment sections on health care etc. Those are the most snooty government worshiping people I have ever come across.
This has been flagged as spam show
GOOGLE "BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION LEWROCKWELL". The SCOTUS KNEW there was nothing in the 14th amendment that gave the Supreme Court the authority to outlaw segregation nationwide. I'm against forced segregation on ANY level of government. But if the Supreme Court can ignore the Constitution with segregation, it can ignore the Constitution with anything.
Sistarovat 58 minutes ago
Comment removed
Sistarovat 1 hour ago
Tom woods in the 5 seconds he gets to talk is good defending himself and the jeffersonian view of the constitution. i was listening to this video yelling at the host to stop going to neil the entire time, and to give mr woods some time to talk.
nbonasoro 1 week ago
You don't agree with federal healthcare? You are a racist...... This is why I stopped listening to NPR. Liberals don't want to be inconvenienced to take care of their neighbors and have more of a localized life. They want to have the government steal from you and force you to be charitable, Why? Liberals wouldn't be charitable otherwise.
clintcastle 3 weeks ago
Tom obviously got shafted on this exchange. He rather got an opportunity to express his view first, and sometimes never got his chance to express the opposing view at all. Typical.
egervari 2 months ago
God, this is nothing but a flurry of attack the author fallacies. Mr. Siegel is repeatedly making arguments that amount to "well if you're for states' right of nullification, why weren't you before?" - That is not a counter-argument you idiot!
dustinseth1 4 months ago
Host is kind of a dick. I don't see the point in taking calls if you give them 15 seconds at a time to talk and constantly interrupt them.
snagillim 6 months ago
Treaties are only valid when pursuant to the constitution. The key work being "pursuant". We find that treaty law can not alter the constitution. So to look for justification for nullification with inthe constitution is rediculous. Almost as rediculous as justifying everything you want to do under the taxing power. Talk about a stretch. I like thguy who said "I'm no expert in law, but I know if you force me to buy something that is not freedom." There's the diff. between knowlege and wisdom.
fleck140 6 months ago
Why would Neil Siegel expect the principle of nullification to be expressed in the constitution? The point of nullification is that the states created the federal gov't and so they have the authority to determine its proper parameters. He asks if treaties can be nullified. Well, yes they can. The World Trade Organization is a perfect example. It transfers power to regulate trade from elected congress to unelected international agencies without having amended the constitution properly.
fleck140 6 months ago
National Zombie Radio sucks.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
It was nice of Tom to show up for screw Tom Woods day. He did a great job defending his poit through it all though.
KenMacMillan 6 months ago
"point"
KenMacMillan 6 months ago
Siegel goes to Baskin and Robbins and licks boot flavored ice cream.
tbmagis 7 months ago
this "debate" was an absolute disgrace, dr. woods didnt get any chance to respond to the nonsense spouted by mr. siegel or really answer any of the callers as the host or moderator or whatever you want to call him went to siegel after every single caller basically
atomicdogg34 7 months ago
what a joke
fsvoorhies 8 months ago
why the H*ll isnt Woods allowed to talk more? this is an outrage. Idiot NPR.
rolgorevene 8 months ago
Umm... so where's Tom Woods?
Jesus fucking Christ. Fuck NPR.
mit26chell 8 months ago
"Why do they start protesting now". That's kinda like asking "why did the wife who was beaten just suddenly report her husband".
Visfen 8 months ago
took one minute before he went zombie
Visfen 8 months ago
Oh my, how frustrating! Knowing Tom Woods, he has an answer for everything Siegel says. But, of course, the host doesn't give him enough time to even begin to respond to his opponent. Siegel simply regurgitates the mainstream propaganda and gets away with it--because Woods isn't allowed to have enough time to respond.
BerlinPhilfan94 9 months ago 9
@BerlinPhilfan94 Absolutely, this is a very underhanded host, who willfully directs the "debate" to shut Woods out and give him no adequate time to reply. You're right; Woods has a definitive response for every point, but he's given no time. What do you expect from Public Broadcasting? They're totally biased and unable to hide it.
avarmadillo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why does this guy keep going to Siegel after almost every caller? To call this a debate is complete BS.
cortsgirl40 10 months ago
Why does this guy keep going to Siegel after almost every caller? To call this a debate is complete BS.
cortsgirl40 10 months ago
bingo...the 2nd caller had it...though she didnt know it....more gov. healthcare...more restrictions 2 individual rights...yeah black dude...people are against healthcare reform because obama is black...must also be the reason they were against the hillary clinton healthcare reform bill
p1b1harper 11 months ago
bingo...the 2nd caller had it...though she didnt know it....more gov. healthcare...more restrictians 2 individual rights...
p1b1harper 11 months ago
Bush's wars were not constitutional! None of our wars have been constitutional since Korea!
MrAbolitionist 11 months ago
@MrAbolitionist they were voted on by congress, which is stated is supposed to happen in the constitution... so they are constitutional....
No Obama's war on the other hand....
sbank 11 months ago
@sbank That doesn't count as a formal declaration.
MrAbolitionist 11 months ago
I guess we can't have states rights because it "evokes memories of racism". Yup, can't follow the constitution cause it might make some people uncomfrtable at the NAACP. And they call this guy a "legal scholar"?
knightschwartz 11 months ago
@knightschwartz @knightschwartz That's right, state rights invoke memories of racism, as do water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants, buses, schools, ropes, trees, pick-up trucks, voting... So, don't use any of those things, otherwise you're a racist.
nosajsmas 10 months ago
@nosajsmas Umm memories, its about historical documents that have legitimacy.
Pdrum2 10 months ago
So, basically Siegels argument boils down to: Well we've managed to do all this other unconstitutional stuff thus far, so there's obviously no legal reason not to do this too.
tarossi400 1 year ago 18
What a crappy one-sided show, they did not even let tom woods have time to say anything.
12Tamtui 1 year ago 3
I didn't realize how accurate the interview with a zombie was until I listened to this. What maddening drivel!
JETZcorp 1 year ago 4
Boy... Taking calls sure was a waste of air time.
klaptongroovemaster 1 year ago
15:09 the hosts arguement would justify world government but he doesn't seem to realize it.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
My Woods was completely ignored every time he spoke. The rest just talked about Republicans, or conservatives, or racists, or anything else except for what Woods was saying. Thomas Woods Jr. was the smartest person in the room. This is a perfect example of Interview with a Zombie.
EliWilliam2005 1 year ago 4
My Woods was completely ignored every time he spoke. The rest just talked about Republicans, or conservatives, or racists, or anything else except for what Woods was saying. Thomas Woods Jr. was the smartest person in the room.
EliWilliam2005 1 year ago
Woods was amazing, almost too gentlemanly not to interrupt. Everything Woods said was completely ignored. Everyone else just talked about Bush, or conservatives, or something completely different from what Woods just said. You know what? This is a classic example of Interview with a Zombie!
EliWilliam2005 1 year ago
Kooky liberals.
savemyplaylist 1 year ago
Wow this NPR guy is a POS. Thanks a lot for allowing Thomas Wood to talk for maybe 6 minutes the whole time you pile!
peckman28 1 year ago
We are allowed to opt out of medicare? SInce when? Or was the caller saying that we should pay into it all our lives than not use it out of principle? lol
frank1es1 1 year ago
We are allowed to opt out of medicare? SInce when? Or was the caller saying that we should pay into it out lives than not use it out of principle? lol
frank1es1 1 year ago
@frank1es1 She said she'd "like them[the states] to opt out of medicare also." When you opt out of something, you DON'T pay into it. What's wrong, comprehension and logic not a part of your skill set?
savemyplaylist 1 year ago
Tom Ashbrook is a complete phony; I believe 19 states gave women the vote BEFORE the Feds...and it has been a huge mistake!
Repeal the 16th, 17th & 19th Amendments!
NPR..."fair & balanced"... as long as you're a Left-Winger!
For 90% of this broadcast all u hear from are the 2 Left-Wingers: Siegel & Ashbrook.
vince33x 1 year ago 3
Jews like Siegel have always used their intellect to enhance the power of the state. It's a shame they don't remember that it was an omnipotent state - Nazi Germany - that tried to wipe them off the map. Jews have proved themselves over and over again as "useful idiots." That's how the Left views them and that's how Trotsky, himself a Jew, viewed them.
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x As I am sure an individualist like Dr. Woods would tell you saying things like " jews always..." is anthetical to a libertarian way of thinking and reinforce the attitude of those who would dismiss us as bigoted kooks. This is about political philosophy and constitutional theory. Religion has nothing to do with it. To paraphrase another jew--Ayn Rand, about racism, believers in liberty can never be racist( or antisemites) because to us all is about the individual--never the group.
sleedolfine15 1 year ago
@sleedolfine15 Please explain to me how pointing out facts is in any way antisemetic. It is a fact that almost 80% of Jews voted for the most Left-Wing Presidential candidate in more than a generation. Jews dominate the very anti-Individualist ACLU; 80 to 90% of the folks in media, in poll after poll, ID themselves as Liberal or Left-of-Center, & the media is clearly dominated by Jews. And yet, Jews control 22% of the SA's wealth while they r only 2% of the USA's population.
vince33x 1 year ago
@sleedolfine15 Indeed, Jews represent 138 of the Forbes 400 richest people in the USA - again, they r only 2% of the USA's population. Do Jews not understand how wealth is created or r they so guilt-ridden for having achieved it? And, if so...why?
Led by Trotsky, Jews dominated the Bolshevik revolution in Russia...leading to a Century of misery 4 about a third of the world's population.
I want 2 know why so many Jews have this almost pathological love affair w/Collectivism?
vince33x 1 year ago
@sleedolfine15 Do Jews have any understanding of the slaughter - including their own - that collectivism has led to? Do Jews not understand that Hitler - as all fascists are at their core - was a collectivist?
I'm trying 2 figure out why this group, which has gained more under freedom tan any other group in history, is at the vanguard of almost every group in the USA which is trying to destroy it.
vince33x 1 year ago
@sleedolfine15 I suggest you search what Ayn Rand, a racist, had to say about her Arab cousins. I suggest you look towards libertarians of the Mises Institute and the philosophy of Rose Wilder Lane.
watch?v=ldyVDbpxpmg
kusari86 1 year ago
@kusari86 Rand was'nt a racist. She did not have a racial or ethnic hatred of arabs,but she hated all authoritarian,anticapitalist antitechnological civilizations--including the country from wence she escaped( the Soviet Empire) . She loved individualism,reason and technology. Consequently she preferred Israel--as do I,as more liberal and advanced than the arab world. I'm personally a libertarian & I know & love Mises well. As for Rose Wilder Lane,I'm presently reading her DISCOVERY OF FREEDOM.
sleedolfine15 1 year ago
@kusari86 Rand a racist? lol. From the AR Lexicon - "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."
sbank 11 months ago
@vince33x - Murray Rothbard was a Jew. Remember him.
Tom Woods does.
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91 He was a great Jew and a great man. Why are so many Jews on the FAR LEFT - 80% of Jews voted for Obama. Jews have been voting Left-Wing for at least a century. Every Jew in Congress is a Left-Winger. Almost every Jew in the media is a Left-Winger. Hollywood, which wields tremendous influence, is wholly owned by Left-Wing Jews. Our economic meltdown was brought about by Jews: Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, et al.
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x - Milton Friedman, also Jewish. Can we suffice to say that the Jewish faith is not what is making these people vote the way they do?
Most of the entire media is left-wing, but Dennis Prager is Jewish, and is hardly left-wing.
Jews who are left-wing are so for the same reason anyone is, it's easier to get money from government than it is to work for it.
The Jewish people hardly have a monopoly on "useful idiots". There is no cause and effect with Faith in the line of reasoning.
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91 The question I asked was why are SO MANY Jews on the Left. Only blacks are on the Left more than Jews. So why so many Jews residing on the Left side of the political spectrum?
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x
Smart people have a problem discarding bad ideas, because they can defend the bad ideas against possible opposition because it is rarer for them to run into formidable opposition. I think the Jews are sort of caught up in a self-induced lock into leftism, firstly, because they are culturally segregated and because on average they tend to be smart people.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter Well, Jews make a huge mistake vilifying Capitalism, especially since their lot has improved more under Capitalism than virtually any other group. As I've noted elsewhere, Jews are only 1.9% of the USA's population yet they control 22% of the USA's wealth; Jews are also 138 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans - an astounding 35%! Yet they remain at the vanguard of almost every Left-Wing group in America. They dominate the major media and not surprisingly, the major media
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x is extremely Left-Wing. They also dominate TV and Hollywood, which are also extremely Left-Wing. I don't think being on the Left is a very smart position to be in because the Left's (and by definition, most Jews) policies are bankrupting the USA. When the collapse occurs, people will be looking for scapegoats and they will single out Jews because of their wealth.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x
The definition of left is confusing.. I wouldn't be surprised if they have some sort of hybrid understanding. After all even Mises, considered himself to be on the Left.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter The Left, which controls most of the communications apparatus: Most media, TV, Hollywood, and the Academy have, by design, obfuscated the meaning of what it is to be Left or Left-Wing or Liberal. If people truly understood what the Left is and what it's for, the Left's following would be greatly diminished. The Right doesn't have near the communications apparatus: FOX NEWS (but it's really middle-of-the-road), Talk Radio, some opinion mags (Nat'l Review; Weekly Standard, Reason) and
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x some Think Tanks (CATO, Heritage< Manhattan Inst., Hoover Inst., etc.). The Right's communications reach is dwarfed by the Left's (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, TIME, NEWSWEEK, NYTimes, LA Times, WASHPOST, and on-and-on...). That the Right is as effective as it is is proof of the power of its message compared to the Left's, which is the message of the dominance of the STATE, where the individual is subjugated and subordinate to the STATE. Remember the Fascist mantra (which could just as
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x easily be the Socialist mantra): Everything for the State, of the State, and by the State. The followers (not the leaders) of the Left are, for the most part, blindly oblivious to what the Left really wishes to achieve, which is the TOTAL STATE.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x
The old meaning of left, was the total opposite of a total state. This is why I tend not to put too much credit in the term itself. It has gone full circle and come around to mean anything you want it to mean.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter U have to understand, the Left needs to muddy the water, because if their agenda were easily understood it would never be tolerated.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x
But this is true on the Right as well. The right too is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, liars, obfuscators and have their own agenda which would never be tolerated if they put it out in the open.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter No it it isn't, listen to talk radio, the hosts and guests don't engage in vagaries. Ron Paul, the ONLY RIGHT-WING candidate left in the race (the other two were Herman Cain and Gary Johnson) has been very specific in the plans he would enact if elected President, including cutting $1 TRILLION from the Federal Budget. If Ron Paul were treated even remotely fairly by the Left-Wing media he would have even more support than he enjoys today. He is largely ignored because the powers-
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x that-be are terrified of his message of real Individual Liberty, which would mean the end-of-the-line for millions of government hacks. U have to remember, gov't workers are the most worthless form of humanity on earth and they are desperate to cling to their cushy way of life - all at taxpayer expense.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x
Is that so? Hmm.. so Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck all are not right wingers at all? Do you really think I haven't heard them talk? Gee.. All of them have condemned Ron Paul as kooky too.
If you want to define the right wing as narrowly as Ron Paul, then okay, you may have a point. But, this cannot be done. Unless you want to allow a left winger like Mises to be the standard bearer for the Left as well.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter The problem w/issues about who's Right and who's Left is that the terms have been deliberately confused for so long. But you have to think rationally about the terms for them to have any true meaning. If Mises thought of himself as a man of the Left, I'd love to hear his explanation as to why - but I can't talk to the dead. Ultimately, Right and Left gets down to how you view the role of government - Less in one direction, more in the other direction.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x
The reason he thought of himself on the left, because the idea of respect for individual is a concept that came from the original left (Bastiat). Along with it came social-collectivism too (Proudhon). But on the right, there was only (monarchic) absolutism and theocratic collectivism.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter Well, times and meanings have sure changed or evolved as Darwin would say.
vince33x 1 month ago
You didn't think NPR aka "Nazi Pinko Radio" was gonna give Tom Woods a fair shot did u?
vince33x 1 year ago
Neil Siegel, just another collectivist Jew. When r Jews going to realize the Left looks upon them as "useful idiots."
vince33x 1 year ago
We are screwed...
teebteeb1268 1 year ago
I listened to this to hear a reasoned debate on the use of nullification, and all I heard was 32 minutes talking about "lawlessness" and "racism," with Tom getting about 4 minutes to argue his case...
ajmj120 1 year ago
Also, his argument for the Constitutionality of Obamacare on the basis of social security is absurd. Social security was only found constitutionality because it was argued that it was not insurance---it was a tax combined with a pension. If you look at the relevant case law, you will see that while it was sold as insurance that was not the line taken before the court. As such, social security is no precedent for obamacare which cannot be broken up into a tax and a pension like that.
Hypatia1951 1 year ago
Did the Republicansdo a lot of bipartisan stuff with Clinton when they were in the minority? Does this guy think the Republicans would be obstructing a libertarian or republican president who was black? Why did the Republicans make a black man the chairman of their party if they are all racists?
Hypatia1951 1 year ago
Niel Siegel's arguments are nothing but poisoning the wells and ad hominems. So what if people who agree with Tom are not consistent---that is not Tom's problem. So what if the South used these ideas; that does not necessarily make them wrong. He needs to argue directly. And what does he cap his argument off with? An ad populam---The magical men in black won't agree with you.
Tom Woods was very mistreated here.
Hypatia1951 1 year ago
@Hypatia1951 Typical of Left-Wing Jews.
vince33x 1 year ago
This isn't a debate...this hardly counts as an exchange. It's two guys blathering about the wonders of central planners stopping to let Woods occasionally interject.
603881 1 year ago
tom woods laughs shortly after 33:45
oreillyfan360 1 year ago
That wasn't a laugh. It was a gasp.
@oreillyfan360
TimothyADonaghue 1 year ago
I don't know how many times. At least 5 or 6. The liberals in this debate (which is everyone but Thomas Woods and a few callers) keep bringing back up "racism" "confederacy".
This is about the same as Tom Woods and a Zombie.
oreillyfan360 1 year ago
Jeez NPR is simply awful.
Willredd94 1 year ago
"States Rights" is the redneck, lynch-mob term. "State Sovereignty" is the intellectual term.
LiberalCast 1 year ago
Comment removed
ronwandell 1 year ago
Speak up Tom, you are in a den of fools
ronwandell 1 year ago
What kind of a crap "debate" is this?
WanderingSeer 1 year ago
If states granted a federal government the right to govern, then it follows that the states can reclaim the power that was given.
yuppyguitar1 1 year ago
This is NPR. Lefty ideas promoted with your tax dollars. What did you expect?
twk373 1 year ago
This is supposed to be a debate? I feel bad for anyone who has the misfortune of having a FAIR debate with Tom Woods.
Godwad 1 year ago
Very one sided "debate". You'd think Tom would have gotten a chance to respond to more than 10% of the questions but hey, at least they let him on the air. Koodo's to NPR for prooving to be zombies after all!
angrygnat 1 year ago
I like the magical leap of logic that, given states can apparently not handle healthcare (that is, provide socialized healthcare, rather than dealing with whether the government ought to provide healthcare at all which is the real question which Siegel conveniently ignores), that owing to the ability of the states to not satisfy such a need the federal government should intervene. Precisely who is deciding that the response is inadequate? All he seems to do is repeatedly beg the question.
Iansback 1 year ago
This was one of the most infuriating "debates" I've ever listened to. The bias in favor of Siegel was unbelievable! Woods hardly got to speak, and when he did he about had to break into the conversation. Boo on that! Whatever happened to a fair and balanced discussion on the merits of the issue? As for Siegel's pov, he keeps ranting that no FEDERAL court would uphold the case for states' rights. Duh. That's precisely the point! Woods addresses this, but his reply just gets glossed over. Grrr.
virmt83 1 year ago 5
neil siegel what do you think, neil siegel what do you think, neil siegel what do you think.....
christ almighty, let tom talk you fucker
atomicdogg34 1 year ago 4
Wow, the degree to which the host favors Neil Siegel is simply beyond belief. He doesn't even ATTEMPT to come across as even-handed when it comes to dealing with his two guests. As another commenter noted, it should be called the Neil Siegel show.
LordKhyron85 1 year ago
Nothing like Daft Punk for a backdrop to a debate about states' rights.
psycobetabuckdown 1 year ago
Tea Party types, Patriots, Libertarians, and Paleo-conservatives like Woods, are looking at the Healthcare bill, and others, from a more skeptical perspective than the media is willing to accept. A perspective that expects the ruling class and their 2-party dictatorship to abuse the people whenever possible. They often come off as kooks in the media, because they're focused on what's hidden below the surface of these bills, not the red herrings left for the sheeple on the surface.
doctordrewl 1 year ago
Damn, Almost the whole show was the Professor Siegal show. What the hell kind of discussion was that?!?!?
slippy0001 1 year ago 4
Woods came off terribly bad in this interview/debate. I may agree with him but in truth he needs to get beyond simply stating he is a Jeffersonian as if that were some magic talisman.
MarcusCMarcellus 1 year ago
@MarcusCMarcellus Couldn't disagree more. The law professor does nothing but spout cliches. Woods talks about Virginia's ratifying convention, the use of nullification by northern states, the way the federal drug war harms blacks, etc. That's not exactly an "I"m a Jeffersonian" tantrum to my ear.
And he needs to mention Jefferson's name as much as he can in order to detoxify nullification, which these people all think was devised by the wickedest of the wicked.
DRNevans 1 year ago 3
Listening to this is incredibly frustrating. The guy just won't let Woods talk!
Erazmus72 1 year ago 3
I don't think I've ever heard so many tu quoque fallacies in a single half hour.
JeffreyRodriguez 1 year ago
That "Seigel" reminds me of that character from Lord of the Rings that wanted the ring and the power that goes with it. It was the character that die at the end by holding onto the ring as it took him into the burning lava. Let go of the ring Seigel, let go of the ring of power. :-) Long live Mises!
LibertyJedi 1 year ago
typical "let's mention everything, discuss nothing" bullshit rushed modern american radio.
oh, and siegel's a silly boy.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 1 year ago
Why did they even bother to have Tom on if they weren't going to let him speak? Tom Woods kicks ass, but uh, you might learn more from him if you listen to interviews where they actually allow him to talk.
Gasolinealley00 1 year ago
America sucks
petmensan 1 year ago
Whats funny is you don't need a nullification clause in the constitution nor a rubber stamp from the Supreme court.
Its simply the refusal to enforce something, and passing an act saying we will not enforce this.
MrAlpruitt 1 year ago
Seems the host is more interested in what Siegel has to say in terms of talk time parity.
furyofbongos 1 year ago
@furyofbongos Of course. This is NPR, after all. They are the recipients of tons of unconstitutional federal spending.
t4509228 1 year ago 2
@t4509228 that is hilarious
robnaro 1 year ago
Siegel is a brainwashed Big-Government Establishment shill.
jpschubbs 1 year ago
Siegel got slapped by a superior intellect.
jpschubbs 1 year ago
What a joke, if you're going to have a debate give equal time to those debating. Woods was given about half the time as Siegel was.
jmhale61 1 year ago
Man....they really railroaded Tom on this one. I didn't measure it, but he must have had 10% of the time for himself while Siegal got 30-40%. Unfair and Unbalanced.
CNCAddict 1 year ago
This guy "Neil Siegel" obviously doesn't understand all the Federal meddling in health care there already is.
"State health care is the keystone in the arch of the socialist state." -Vladimir Lenin
Allowing only one party of a contract to interpret the meaning of a contract is moronic. The states can also interpret the constitution.
ArmednSafe 1 year ago
Neil Siegel was pretending to be ignorant an awful lot. Particularly in regards to the controversy surrounding the Commerce Clause. It makes me sick to hear so many people trying to turn this into a matter of Republican v Democrat. ...and whether or not the advocates of States Rights are legitimately principled, or closet-bigots.
The debate is supposed to be about RIGHTS — not about SHOULDS.
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
Tom Woods did not get a fair shake. I give him a lot of credit for keeping his composure.
jsyc07 1 year ago 23
Siegel is a typical idealogue with no grasp at all of what the fuck he is talking about. Obama drone,Democratic party hack, he cannot debate the issues without polticizing them and demonizing any contrary thought.
pretorious700 1 year ago 5
hahaha! you can hear Tom Woods gasp in horror at Siegel's statement that any talk of nullification is talk of lawlessness. it's right around 34:00 or thereabouts.
johnidavey 1 year ago
What a pile of crap. Statism is hilarious.
camondraconis 1 year ago
Taxing power?!?!?! So the federal government can dictate behavior through taxation in any manner it pleases? It could make a $1,000,000 tax for failing to vote for the Democratic Party?
Liberals are grasping for straws when it comes to the Constitution. Their only defense is, "Well that's how we chose to interpret it"
meambobbo 1 year ago
So they give the statist 9 minutes to Woods's 3, and then go to callers? NPR is a sick joke.
JiveDadson 1 year ago
This debate is absurdly biased. Woods could clean this Siegel's clock. I could destroy Siegel in a constitutional debate.
I wonder if Siegel actually believes his own crap?
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
Woods really should have spoken up because everything that dude said was clearly absurd. "Siegel, what is your side?" "Lets go to a caller so Woods can't address your response..."
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
You have to love how Seigel keeps coming back to this insane notion that because no SCOTUS justice would endorse a particular interpretation of the Constitution, that interpretation is incorrect. Good heavens, does he think the Supremes are an infallible oracle? What about Dred Scott? It was exactly because the Supremes are not judicial Popes that you need nullification.
RMMHS4RP 1 year ago
The best part of the interview is Woods, "Uh!!?" at ~33:57, following Seigel's statement, "I don't like any talk of Nullification... because it is talk of LAWLESSNESS." W/ a better mic, I think we would have heard woods' hand slapping is forehead. This is the epitome of the old saying, "It is difficult to see things clearly when your salary depends on not seeing things clearly."
WeThinkWereFree 1 year ago
Comment removed
RMMHS4RP 1 year ago
@WeThinkWereFree Well put. By Siegel's logic, it seems that it would be lawless to nullify a fugitive slave law that deprived a man of his right not to be someone else'e property. Where did Duke find this guy?
RMMHS4RP 1 year ago
I guarantee you if there is another large war then the federal government will undoubtedly bring back the draft. If there is no such thing as nullification then you have no citizen can legally disobey when the federal government passes such a law. So look the federal government can set a precedence to do good things (civil rights act, etc) but they can equally do harm with the same precedent.
nuclide 1 year ago
This is why I hate NPR. Out off a 37 min show, Woods got 8.5 mins of talk time. What a sham. Siegel is your 'A' typical progressive elitist wonk. It was frustrating to listen to, because everyone knows the position of the Progressive but not everyone knows the true historical record that Woods was trying to get across. Oh and I love Siegel's evoking judicial mob rule as some kind of moral justification for trashing the Constitution and the Founders vision for a free society.
marshall1963 1 year ago 18
Of course the Fed govt, including SCOTUS, will NOT support nullification. Duh. But this law 'scholar' can't even recognize that nullification is about state action. 'Nullification' was never a means by which states appeal to the federal courts. It's going to get ugly, because I can guarantee the Tea Parties & millions more who haven't even attended a tea party yet are NOT listening to constitutional law scholars to form their opinions about whether the federal govt has overstepped its bounds.
Jaycephus01 1 year ago
Of course Tom Woods gets no time. Fuck Neil Siegel.
joslin01 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
NPR at it's finest... repeating a point over and over instead of addressing counter-points made and creating straw man arguments instead of debating the merits of the opposition's initial arguments.
NPR itself IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Does anyone expect NPR to promote valid constitutional arguments?
jgrdonquixote 1 year ago
Comment removed
jgrdonquixote 1 year ago
Comment removed
jgrdonquixote 1 year ago
Comment removed
jgrdonquixote 1 year ago
Comment removed
jgrdonquixote 1 year ago
Comment removed
jgrdonquixote 1 year ago
Comment removed
jgrdonquixote 1 year ago
Comment removed
jgrdonquixote 1 year ago
National Propaganda Radio
Statism is a disease.
PrudenceWright 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
m7steel 1 year ago
I commend Tom Woods for getting through this interview without his head exploding.
m7steel 1 year ago 4
Sounds like they gave Tom about as equal time to talk as they did Ron Paul in the debates. I wonder if the NPR lovers caught that, or even better, have an issue with it.
911isafront 1 year ago 4
Tom Woods is too witty and intelligent for these guys
kdj24370 1 year ago 6
"Oh my goodness, the Earth suddenly broke free of its axis and went spinning off toward the sun!"
Hah. Tom's the best.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago 4
"The taxing power"?
You can argue they have the power to take our money, but the Constitution explains specifically what they are allowed to do with it.
The Commerce Clause was to promote trade between the states, "to make regular." It wasn't for centralized bureaucrats to manage trade.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
Comment removed
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
what a slanted waste of time this was
rumei1 1 year ago 7
NPR...pseudo-intellectuals desperately rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic known as the Federal Government. It is too costly and too intrusive and is sinking because it has struck the iceberg of LIBERTY!
timothybevin 1 year ago 5
After listening to this very one-sided discussion, I have become a Thomas Wood fan....he is an eloquent scholar who substantiates what he says...a tremendous spokesperson for the libertarian ideas that are sweeping this nation.
timothybevin 1 year ago 23
@timothybevin I agree; and the funny thing is that most people don't realize that "RealID" was nullified by the states in 2005. If it wasn't we'd all have national id cards now.
LiberalCast 1 year ago
NPR people are some of the most ignorant know-it-alls in the world.
sonofaglitch2 1 year ago 6
I don't think Tom Woods can be faulted for not speaking up...the crummy host was trying to stack the deck directing the Q's to that moron statist. At one point the host was going to leave Tom out on the racism issue and just let that moron have the definitive word and Tom interjected...the other guy NEVER had to interject once.
Needless to say Mr. Woods made an excellent stand, I wish it were more of a debate and less callers though.
puritanbob 1 year ago 6
Siegel is an deceptive, evil bastard. He and his ilk are what's destroyed this country.
And make no mistake, there's no turning back with the idiots we have in charge. This country's done in less than a decade, probably in less than 3 years.
mmaier2112 1 year ago 6
This Niel Siegal guy is a real idiot.
tyrantslayer999 1 year ago 6
But the question is off base on car insurance. You are required to have insurance to drive on public roads for that reason. There are private hospitals, and doctor do run private practices. And your health is a private matter.
billyberoo72 1 year ago 2
Tom Woods is brilliant but this turned into the Neil Siegel show. Speak up Tom.
Nullification is not lawlessness it is the law functioning to protect us from an overbearing federal government.
ronwandell 1 year ago 4
Wow what happened to Tom. This was the Neil Siegel show. Speak up more Tom.
ronwandell 1 year ago
The first caller says, on States rights: "It just doesn't bode well for the well-being of all citizens." Then doesn't explain himself. The second caller is also against States rights.
Maybe the reason we're seeing a rise in State's rights awareness is because it's naturally going that way.
You can't force people to change.
It's funny how the liberal mind claims open-mindedness unless it goes against their "religion."
And I'm an independent.
styleomatic 1 year ago 3
this is a terribly structured interview. anyone can see that it favored Niel Siegel.
treboomboom 1 year ago 4
I love how thomas woods got all of about 47 seconds to speak during that video and that other moron went on and on spewing verbal sewage into the air. Npr is just awful!
marcustilliuscicero 1 year ago 3
I've been going through the npr sites comment sections on health care etc. Those are the most snooty government worshiping people I have ever come across.
akai1sora 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
spyletu 1 year ago