Judge Andrew Napolitano would make an excellent and pure Constitutional Supreme Court Justice.

I love the judge. He is such a knowledgeable person and such an entertaining speaker.

The judge... What a stud.

He would make a great president if the bureaucracies don't kill him.

@clarencepeterson8646

8 жыл бұрын

+Sami Hanish Maybe Rand could appoint him Attorney General.

@zombiedude347

6 жыл бұрын

If all the supreme court was replaced by him, it'd be great.

God bless this man an Intellectual giant

Speaking on the matter of free thought..... Here's an FYI everyone needs to understand INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL OF LONDON *November 25th, 2014* by Dr. Parasaran Rangarajan *PROTECTING BRAINWAVES CONSIDERING SIGNAL INTELLIGENCE ADVANCES* (Abstract) “*This article aims to demonstrate and explore the avenues for Protection of Brainwaves of Ideas in relation to Advances in Surveillance Technology, more specifically Signal Intelligence Technology*, via three sections: 1. Describing the *Advances in Signal Intelligence Technology today and its Relevance to Brainwaves*. Also discussed is the Anatomical description of Brainwaves. 2. Then, *we build on the basis that These Technologies Exist and the Need to Seek Legal Protection from them*. Various Electronic Communication Law and Human Right Laws including cases are introduced. 3. The last part deals with both transnational law with the steps the European Union (E.U.) has taken to offer protection under international law, both as an intellectual property and human rights issue. Section one is split into two parts. In the *first part*; the article *explains the Advances in Electronic Signal Intelligence Technology including U.S. patented Electromagnetic Devices which are Designed to Read, Alter, and even Attack Brainwaves*. Important *Scientific Proof of Reading Brainwaves and the Mind* by Reconstructing Thoughts "Word for Word" from Various Research Institutions as well as *using Wireless Electroencephalography (EEG)* which have demonstrated *similar to "iBrain" Product* is presented to provide the basis for the rest of the article. Some of the *Dangers and Capabilities of these devices are stated by the facts*. In the second part; the article explains an anatomical views of brainwaves in the case that they cannot be viewed as electronic communications but viewed as the heart for example despite the advances in signal intelligence technology. Theoretical discussions by various authorities and scholars are presented. An introduction to the various human rights legislature which have been introduced in the past is also stated and *Direct Energy Weapons (DEW) as well as Active Denial Systems* (ADS) are explained. We also go various *Electromagnetic Brain Frequencies Emitted which can Explain States of Mind including the Schumann Resonance (7.83 Hz) phenomenon when your brainwaves are one with the earth’s electromagnetic spectrum eminences*. *Section two deals with Protecting Our Rights in relation to Intellectual Property and Human Rights* and is divided into two scenarios. Under the first scenario; we focus in on *Protecting Brainwaves* given the two scenarios above being *viewed as “electronic communications” and “data” given that there is consent or judicial sanction*. In this scenario, the article reviews the relevant case law such in the U.S. for limits on warrantless surveillance where intellectual property rights are taken away including the defense related provisions such as the Patriot Act (2001). In addition to intellectual property laws, classic cases on electronic surveillance for practical purposes such as discovery and subpoenas such as Katz v. United States (1935) are discussed in relevance with the electromagnetic technologies of today. An analysis of existing laws such as the Electronic Communications Protection Act (ECPA) including the need for reforms on the lines of the *Public Act 256 of 2003 in Michigan which has expressly banned Electromagnetic Devices for Harmful uses* is conducted. Under the second scenario; protection of brainwaves are discussed as a human rights issue and the various *U.S. human rights legislation is brought up such as the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) in addition to international legislation the U.S. is bound by and relatively new cases on this subject such as James Walbert v. Jerimiah Redford (2008) which is the first case in U.S. history to Recognize Electromagnetic Weapons being Used Against a Person*. *Section three* is also divided into two parts and *focuses on International Law and Transnational Law on Protecting Brainwaves in as both “Electronic communications” and “data” as well as examining the issue from a Human Rights Perspective*. First; *European Union law is introduced with issued Regulations and Directives which have Banned Surveillance on "Biometric" and "Genetic data" which is Applicable to Brainwaves*. In the second part dealing with International law; we discuss to *Protect Intellectual Property of Brainwaves through customary international law such as the “International Bill for Human Rights”, various United Nations (U.N.) Conventions, and options available for seeking remedy*. The role of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is discussed and *we also explore the need for drafting a separate U.N. Convention for this purpose with reference to the utilitarian-pragmatic argument considering the philosophy of thought in society*. The article is concluded by stating that *We have long ways to go in Protecting our Brainwaves due to Technological Advances in Signal Intelligence* although we have gotten off to a fair start in the U.S., E.U., and internationally. www.internationallawjournaloflondon.com/protecting-brainwaves-considering-signal-intelligence-technology-advances.html (Note from channel - *Laws exist Every Where for Protection & Prosecution for this type of Crime - International, National, even States - yet No One Is listening nor Abiding by Any of them*)

Shared

Natural Law & Natural Rights! AmeN

He's got balls at the very least lol

OK, a bit off topic, but does anyone ever wonder what is up with the Judge's hairline?

@user-bg2zv5ig2b

2 жыл бұрын

Natural law of healthy hairline

Judge, could voting be considered as consent?

@kensurrency2564

2 жыл бұрын

In the absence of a reply from The Judge, may I offer my thoughts: In the first place, as Andrew deftly pointed out, the “Government” as drafted in the Constitution was ratified by the States, not The People (“Citizens”). You could make the argument that the States were “elected” by the Citizens, which would satisfy the requirement of consent. However, not all citizens were allowed to vote. So a large majority of the citizens were not allowed and thus unable to grant consent. That’s the first problem. The next problem is that, even when full suffrage was encoded in law, consent was (and still is) corrupted by coercion and deception by the candidates and the process itself. Consent can only be granted when it is informed. Political candidates continuously and regularly campaign by dishonesty. The Nuremberg Code plainly stated that consent must be informed in the context of medical human experimentation, and as an extension of the Ninth Amendment any decision of an individual granting power to an authority must gain approval by informed consent. Therefore, it is my argument that unless a candidate offers the Citizens truthful information in exchange for Their vote, that vote is not automatically considered valid and thus not deemed consent. The only vote that counts is a vote for a candidate who makes honest statements and claims and who follows through with them as honestly and thoroughly as possible. Deception is not allowed in consent. I can think of very few elected officials who fit that description. Ron Paul is on the short list. Therefore, our current government is overwhelmingly NOT by consent. So my admonition to everyone is: if you’re going to vote for a candidate, you better be really sure they’re worth it. Liars, cheats, and thieves need not apply.

I am sure you meant Common Law (natural law) and Public Policy (Legislative fiat), I can define these things and I have the precedent.

@MrsV03

3 жыл бұрын

Research Natural Law not what you studied aka Common Law. They are two different things.

He's not correct. It's WE THE PEOPLE. I am thoroughly disappointed at his language and this presentation....Which "legal"indoctrination center did he attend? One which is probably in control of the monopoly on the practice of law known as the Bar Association. This is half and half.

@ottometzger5066

8 жыл бұрын

+GuysCallMeShawna He was speaking literally, in that it wasn't actually "the People" that wrote and signed the Constitution. It was fifty-five men representing their respective States. If it were really the People that had enacted the Constitution, you'd see around five million signatures on the document.

@GuysCallMeShawna

8 жыл бұрын

Otto Metzger I know what he is saying. It's a contract which YOU can accept by letter or in a law (common law) suit. The Law is defined as "the decree of the sovereign." Court is defined as the suit of the sovereign. When you file a suit AT LAW (common law -in contradistinction to the colorable admiralty law based on legislative fiat AKA public Policy AKA "statutory jurisdiction")you are in your sovereign capacity. We live in a REPUBLIC. In a republic the individual is the sovereign. Ever hear the term "You are the king of your castle?" It comes from common law...or the Magna Carta. I have the precedent to back this up. In NYS, the constitution under Article VI, section 1 (b) states that all courts the legislature enacts SHALL BE courts of record. "Shall be" has a mandatory operative effect. Courts of record have a common law jurisdiction. ALso, the judge or magistrate of the court is independent of the tribunal (jury)...the judge DOES NOT MAKE ORDERS nor can he pass judgement...that is the jury of peers (other sovereigns in contradistinction to citizens who are subject "subordinate" to the government under the fourteenth amendment) for more See: The Constitution for the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. It's in PDF on the federal governments website. The State is an agency (agent en legis) which you can exercise your sovereignty should you CONSENT OR you can exercise it directly through your court in your sovereign suit (see amendment 9). The "Bill of rights is NOT a Bill granting you constitutional rights; it is a Bill of prohibition as the intent of law is in the preamble. To put further declaratory and restrictive clauses to prevent abuse. Your rights come from GOD (as you choose define it or reject all personification and abstracts of it) and are inherent, then how can the government grant you them in a bill? They can't. CONSENT is always left out and everything boils down to contracts...You must ACCEPT the contract and there are many remedies for this. How you choose to exercise this compelled benefit is entirely up to you...

@ottometzger5066

8 жыл бұрын

+GuysCallMeShawna I agree with you, Shawna. It's obvious you know your stuff. I will just comment on this remark: "We live in a REPUBLIC. In a republic the individual is the sovereign. Ever hear the term "You are the king of your castle?"' If a republic is truly a political system in which the individual is sovereign, can we really say we live in a republic anymore? NSA wiretapping, "sneak-and-peak," searches, and "no-knock raids" reveal pretty clearly that no long does the government believe us to be the kings of our respective castles." What do you think?

@danielskiba8256

8 жыл бұрын

+GuysCallMeShawna We the people sounds so corny we need to think of something better bc honestly Im more like me the people bc i could give a shit less about my neighbor

@GuysCallMeShawna

8 жыл бұрын

Daniel Skiba You are A people apart from the people as a whole. It's the difference between a democracy and a republic: In a republic, the sovereignty is on the people (individuals) where in a democracy, it is POPULAR sovereignty or MOB RULE. WE THE PEOPLE is correct. It's the best. What we need is more prohibitory and directive language. AND we need to decentralize the power over curriculum and get federal funding out of the picture. Instead of teaching the kids in their "government" class to fill out tax forms (telling them this law applies to them when it doesn't) they should be teaching civics and LAW, Common law. It's a brave New World when those who decree the law don't have to follow it, isn't it? If you don't defend your neighbor's liberty when the time comes, who should defend yours? That is the REAL martial law. It upholds the constitution, it doesn't suspend it. Personally, I think you're being a douche bag but I would give my life to defend your liberty because if they tread on you, they can tread on me...unless that is you consent to being tread on.

Our law is indeed based on the principle of natural law. However, the natural law does NOT favor libertarian assumptions, certainly not in its contemporary construal. It certainly does not favor democracy, a democratic polity is not bound to act in accord w/ any notion of natural right. Actually, monarchy is more truly closer to nature then any other form of gov't. The term "Republic" is derived from "res publica." A phrase meaning something like "the business of the public. Our sovereignty is not rooted the individual, it exists dispersed over the whole community at large. The Founders were not anarchists, really modern "libertarianism" simply a form of anarchism. Anarchism is actually the supreme form of tyranny. a tyrant is a person who rules w/o regard for custom, law or tradition. It is arbitrary rule. We exist socially, always, our basic society is rooted in the family. Our families & thus, by derivation, our larger society is more important then & prior to ourselves.

@johnmoonitz2968

8 жыл бұрын

+VictorLepanto Sorry Victor . . . you are mistaken about many things in your comment. You appear to have a misunderstanding about what are natural rights and what is Libertarianism. First and foremost, Libertarian does not equal anarchist, despite some similarities. You have more homework to do.

@VictorLepanto

8 жыл бұрын

+John Moonitz Most libertarians have no concept of either history, philosophy, or certainly natural law. Hayek is not a conservative, he is a CLASSICAL LIBERAL & thus held the traditional sources of law, morality & society in as much contempt as do the Marxists. In fact, he was every bit as much of a materialist as any classical Marxist. His kind of libertarian basically starts his understanding (misunderstanding) of human nature from the same economic determinism as does the Marxist. Both groups think human nature is driven by economic motives, the Marxist simply takes these economic motives as a problem to be overcome, the Hayekian libertarian takes it as a belle ideal to be embraced. Both are wrong, like most profound errors, they take some small fragment of the truth & deform it by decontextualizing it from a larger more wholistic understanding of human nature. The very word economics comes from the Greek word for household, as in where a family lives. It was originally about families supporting themselves. This is why economics began as a branch of THEOLOGY & was taught in theology departments of universities. & if YOU were to do YOUR homework you'd know that Rothbardian style Libertarians actually ARE anarchists. Many Libertarians DO call themselve Anarcho-libertarians. If you did YOUR homework, you'd also learn to not embarrass yourself by acting like such an arrogant know-it-all ass.

@JD-os2kr

8 жыл бұрын

+VictorLepanto So you're saying that modern libertarians are nothing more than anarchists? Furthermore you equate anarchism to tyranny? How's that again?

@VictorLepanto

8 жыл бұрын

***** Tyranny is when a man rules w/o regard to any restraint, be it popular will, representative gov't, or constitutional/legal standards. Tyranny is one man doing as he wants w/o restraint. In anarchy, every man does as he wishes w/o regard to any restraint. Anarchy is really the ultimate tyranny. & Rothbardian type libertarianism is indeed anarchic.

@VictorLepanto

8 жыл бұрын

Inlacesh WeRone What people are you on about? The Founders of America were indeed no anarchists. An archon is indde another name for someone who enforces rules but that is not what the term anarchy means. It means there are no rules governing people. In an anarchic society (for lack of a better way of expressing it) people who wish to live must arm themselves to the teeth & barricade themselves in their houses, hoping they can once again live until the next day. It is indeed true that such a situation will be short lived, until the next tyrant can assert a single rule. Obviously a preferable situation to anarchy. Tyranny means a ruler has no external restraints on his exercise of power, in an anarchic situation people are not restrained by anything other then another person more powerful then themselves.