Judge Andrew Napolitano - Health Care Bill Passed by Congress UNCONSTITUTIONAL - Part 1 of 2

Judge Andrew Napolitano speaks about the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Health Care Reform Bill that passed the Congress last Saturday night. This congress is out to destroy America as we know it and they must be stopped!! Lovers of Liberty - We must fight tooth and nail!!!!! Call your Senators and DEMAND that they throw the entire bill out.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Judge Andrew Napolitano
• health care bill
• health care reform
• obama
• socialism
• economic crisis
• economy
• freedom
• liberty
• free the nation
• ron paul
• constitution
• libertarian
• republican
• conservative
• liberal
• congress
• gold
• inflation
• deficit
• national debt
• social security
• public option
• glenn beck
• nancy pelosi
• democrat.

[FreeTheNation]

@eminentgentleman

This forum does not permit lengthy quotes, etc. Suffice it to say that the framers of the Constitution were MUCH more extreme in their choice of words and description of the MAIN purpose of the Constitution. It was not, AT ALL, to "constrain" but meant to PREVENT. That's why the framers had to debate which Amendment was more important to the Constitution, the 1st or 2nd.... that without an armed citizenry, the Constitution would be circumvented by "MEN" with "agendas"

[FreeTheNation]

@eminentgentleman

Wrong again. and i quote "...free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go; . . . In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

[eminentgentleman]

@FreeTheNation What you really meant to say was that the constitution was written to constrain government.

"Prevent" and "halt" are absolutes that are not compatible with an imperfect document.

[eminentgentleman]

@FreeTheNation You should be more concerned with the emerging plutocracy in your country where only those with money have any power.

People like you are either willfully ignorant of this looming timebomb or are one of those fake grassroots types that is just on here spouting policies that are stuck in 1788.

[eminentgentleman]

@FreeTheNation France is not a socialist state.

Countries that have enacted systems that protect those who are at a disadvantage, whether temporary or permanent, are not Communist/Statist/Marxist/Coll­ectivist/Fabianist/Socialist or any other such fancy word you care to throw at them.

You can call them progressive, but I prefer to call it common sense. A "society" that chooses to ignore those less fortunate is no longer a society and you will have a breakdown very quickly.

Sound familiar?

[FreeTheNation]

@eminentgentleman

That depends on your definition of Socialism....of which there are many. France is most certainly Socialist, Collectivist, Fabianist or whatever other word you wish to choose to describe a government which puts the needs of the Collective above the needs of the Individual. The US has strong elements of Socialism. Read the ten planks of Communism by Marx and you will find that the US is well down the path to Marxism.

[FreeTheNation]

@eminentgentleman

Furthermore, any person who studies the writings of the framers will quickly find out that the ENTIRE MATTER of the Constitution was to PREVENT and HALT all forms of government infringements on Individual Liberty. It is clear that you have not studied the original writings and concerns of those who set up this country. I suggest you read two treatises on Government by John Locke. This is the foundation of the Declaration and the Constitution

[FreeTheNation]

@eminentgentleman

Federalist paper No. 41 is indisputable. What's more disturbing is that the matter addressed by No. 41 is merely common sense. Only a desperate fool, driven by a political viewpoint and a need to circumvent the Constitution, would argue otherwise.

The purpose of the Supreme Court was NEVER to provide clarity.....it's purpose was to make sure the Federal Government didn't overstep the "Chains of the Constitution." It's main purpose was to protect LIBERTY.

[FreeTheNation]

@eminentgentleman

Not at all. The Founders were the first to express that the constitution would need to evolve with the new nation and the needs of society. The INSTRUMENT of that evolution is called a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

You sound like an intelligent person, so you should get that the instrument of change is not the Supreme Court, executive order or legislative action.... but rather a Constitution Amendment. That process was to guarantee that there be a SUPER MAJORITY.