The Constitution and Freedom

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Jan 19, 2010.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    I always enjoy Judge Andrew Napolitano's thoughts and considerations regarding American history, law, and the constitution. I enjoyed his most recent program entitled "The Constitution and Freedom" which can be found in it's entirety on YouTube (each clip is about 5-6 min. long). It's fairly elementary (to appeal to as wide as an audience as possible), but I think goes into some very important issues which many politicians and individuals in the public no longer seem to concern themselves with. I think the videos cover some important topics....

    What are your thoughts on these videos? Do you disagree with any of the Judge's opinions on the issues? Where did he mess up? Where did he get it right? Is this pure right-wing tea party style blabbering? Do the founders matter? Does the constitution matter? Do the ends justify the means?

    I think there's a lot to discuss here... thanks for your input and conversation!

    Part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9kM6vWL2QA

    Part 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGzFSajvy1g

    Part 3
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A725vBawbw

    Part 4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj6PSNwK_u4

    Part 5
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_bDVpnDceg
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    A transcript would help. Can't watch vids at work. Are there any transcripts?
     
  3. djellison macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Pasadena CA
    #3
    I'll wait for your comments first - bring the pieces of the videos you find most important to the thread as text, and comment as you have asked above. If you want a conversation - start one.

    But as SkyBlue has alluded - I'm not expecting you to actually engage in a conversation - just preaching.
     
  4. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #4
    Not sure of these are going to be 100% accurate... apparently they are 'automatically created' by a computer program.

    Part 1 - Judge Andrew Napolitano on why the Constitution is the greatest political document ever written

    Part 2 - Judge Andrew Napolitano breaks down Congress' role under the Constitution
     
  5. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #5
    Part 3 - Judge Andrew Napolitano on the president's powers and roles under the Constitution


    Part 4 - Judge Andrew Napolitano breaks down the role of the courts under the Constitution
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    I'll have to wait till later. Some of that isn't making sense. Oh well. You tried.
     
  7. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #7
    Yeah, it looks like the transcripts are pretty poor. That 'computer program' is probably a Microsoft product. ;) Anyway, watch the clips later... they're quite easy to watch at only 5 minutes each, and I found them to be enjoyable.
     
  8. colourfastt macrumors 6502a

    colourfastt

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    #8
    Thomas Jefferson: "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

    Commentary: This is an interesting quote which means that one generation cannot obligate a later generation in any way. This is relevant in terms of great public debts where, by right, the time to pay it off ought to be within the same generation's lifetime which benefited from the loan. The Earth belongs to each generation fully in each's turn and a past generation cannot rightly rule over those presently living.

    Thomas Jefferson: To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years, and their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons who have already attained 21. years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come on, and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. the 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it's own existence. (Bolding mine)

    Thomas Jefferson: "Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42

    "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
    (Bolding mine)

    Commentary: Since the earth belongs to the living, like debt, government ends with each generation with the subsequent generations forming the types of governments that suit them. As such, the Constitution cannot be considered binding on the generations of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Sounds like someone is trying to subvert the constitution.

    Honestly, I googled this guy. He's a law analyst for Fox News. Sorry- I'm not even interested in anything he has to say. He's even subbed for Glenn Beck on his show. That's really all I need to know. If anybody really wants to see what this guy is all about, just google "Andrew Napolitano Beck". Whoa- scary.

    http://www.newshounds.us/2009/11/11...one_step_short_of_advocating_insurrection.php

    Sorry, fivepoint. I can't stomach people who are associated with Fox News or Glenn Beck. It's just more Libertarian/near-anarchist nonsense.
     
  10. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #10
    One of my biggest pet peeves on this forum... people so insecure about their own views that they're not even willing to listen to someone speak from the 'other side'... people that refuse to even listen or watch perspectives which do not fit with their worldview.

    Personally, I watch Fox News sometimes, but I also watch CNN and MSNBC. I read articles from the Huffington Post and Drudge daily. I read the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. I guess I'm just a bit more comfortable in my own shoes.

    Lee, If I was you, and some of the other posters who wanted to go ad hominem, I'd rethink my approach and actually consider discussing the merits of the argument... actually review the competition's position so you can speak intelligently as to why you agree or disagree.

    Or whatever you want... just ignore someone because they're a legal analyst for Fox News. :) Hilarious.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    Oh- I didn't ignore him. I looked him up. There are several pages of links with him and Beck on Fox News. Do I really need to listen to his arguments for Texas' secession, or his speech to an Ohio Tea Party, etc? No- I really don't. It's wingnuttery- and I've heard it all before.

    I don't stand around and argue with a the street preacher on the corner either. Do you?
     
  12. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #12
    Whatever, Lee. Good men can argue about what the right answer is... but when one side simply buries their head in the sand and refuses to listen to the opposition... all you get is uninformed unintellectual bias.

    I didn't really expect any less I suppose... just feel bad for you and others... it's hard to learn anything when you aren't even open-minded enough stop reading the same old book, and take a trip to the library once and a while. Really reminds me of the ultra-nutty religious zealots who aren't even open minded enough to analyze alternative. The funny thing is, it's almost impossible to have a real viewpoint when you don't even comprehend the alternatives. All it is is a viewpoint born out of ignorance.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Personally I just can't be bothered to waste time debunking Fox News for getting it wrong yet again. And for employing such distasteful presenters as Beck they aren't really worth the time.

    If you have an individual point from Fox News then I'm more happy to pay attention to it.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Here's the thing fivepoint. I've been listening to crap arguments and BS from people like Limbaugh, Beck and Napolitano for very long time. I was listening to Limbaugh all during Clinton. So don't sit there and tell me I won't listen to opposing viewpoints. I have. I just don't feel like listening to them over and over and over, when they never say anything new. I know what their arguments are, I've heard them a million times.

    That's not bias, that's just knowing what they have to say already. The Google results for Napolitano were so predictable, it was like deja vu.
     
  15. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #15
    The fact that you just equated Napolitano to Limbaugh proves my point... you don't even know who the guys is... and you've already determined you don't even want to LISTEN to him. Whatever. Enjoy your blinders. :)

    I'm anxious to hear from someone who will even take the time to watch the segment. It will be a nice change to have an argument with actual substance. Can't wait!

    For the rest of you, feel free to start a thread regarding why you refuse to listen to the words of anyone who contributes to Fox. Otherwise you're simply trolling my thread. Thank you in advance for doing so.
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Fivepoint- I already told you I looked him up. I got a nice summary of his views, then discovered he was also a Beck crony. Kept digging and found out, oh surprise, he's also a Libertarian and Ron Paul pal. Having gotten that far, there really isn't much else I need to know. If you think there is, please post those specific points. Otherwise, you've left us with a lot of broad points and nothing to zero in on. You started broad, and I responded broad. I don't have time to look up every single thing about this guy.
     
  17. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #17
    Here's the thing fivepoint. Good men and women HAVE argued about what the right answer is, and they have done it for 200 years. Some of the best legal minds, on both the right and left, have argued and made incredibly reasoned and intelligent decisions on these issues. The US Supreme Court, the lower federal courts, state courts... all are populated by intelligent, educated people who have argued all of these issues.

    When I hear someone argue that huge chunks of legal precedent are wrong, it makes me wonder, who is their client. Few lawyers truly believe that they are smarter than 200 years of precedent, but most lawyers will happily argue to change the law on behalf of a client.

    Anyway, the right answer is where we are today, not some new interpretation of what the founding fathers had said 200+ years ago.

    If you're up for some light reading, go read some Appellete Court decisions. You'd be surprised at how much intelligent thought goes into cases long, long before they reach the Supremes.
     
  18. AppleIntelRock macrumors 65816

    AppleIntelRock

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    #18
    The United States constitution– while admirable, is the product of Eurocentric glorification just like anything else. It's fairly clear what the intentions of the founding fathers were– the polyarchy is still here today. So with response to the constitution and freedom–*don't get too excited.
     
  19. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #19
    "Arguing with idiots makes you an idiot."

    - Wise man from comic strip Non Sequitur.
     
  20. AppleIntelRock macrumors 65816

    AppleIntelRock

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    #20
    Is that so?
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    What a train wreck of a thread. You post links to videos instead of a text, then the text you do post is entirely unreadable, and drivel to boot. Is this the best you can or are willing to do?
     
  22. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #22
    Sometimes, definitely. There are some people who are unable to debate, and no matter what you say to them, there will be no debate. And if you think it's a good idea to try and debate these people, what does that make you?
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    I'd be happy to debate specific points, but this is far too broad to even know where to begin.
     
  24. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #24
    What a train wreck of a post. Apparently you don't realize that the reason I linked to the videos, was that I wanted to discuss THE VIDEOS. I posted the transcripts out of courtesy to Lee... Unfortunately they were automated transcripts and the computer did a horrible job of transcribing. Much of what I wanted to discuss was a combination of the text with the imagery, etc. the entire production... so, how about this. Watch the videos and comment, or don't comment at all...
     
  25. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL

Share This Page