Judge Andrew Napolitano: Reflections on the Loss of Liberty

21 Jul

This is a brilliant speech.  Not merely entertaining, but educational.  Absolutely worth your time.  Worth your study. At one point in the Q&A, Napolitano admits that the States have become “administrative districts” of the federal government.

video     00:51:52


Tags: , , , , , , ,

17 responses to “Judge Andrew Napolitano: Reflections on the Loss of Liberty

  1. Joseph LAmarca

    July 21, 2013 at 12:56 PM

    something is wrong with all of these do gooder’s

    Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 15:52:57 +0000 To:

  2. Adrian

    July 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM

    To much talk about nothing. They all belive in this fiction named “Government”. Just like the Straw
    man,it only exists on the paper and in people’s minds. All these talking heads,make a profit from people’s ignorance.
    What America needs is People’s action towards Its real freedom,abolishment of the present status quo.
    All these scum bags from the Middle East are dominating the Media and the Internet.
    STOP listen to these crooks.The History it’s been perverted by them.
    The ZIONIST MAFIA has conquered America long time ago.
    You need to fight them out of here,one bastard at the time.

    • NDT

      July 22, 2013 at 2:39 AM

      Necessitas non habet legem. Necessity has no law.

    • Robert Christopher Laity

      July 22, 2013 at 3:34 AM

      The ones that we have to ban from America that are from the Middle East are Islamic Jihadists. BTW, Obama is a Muslim supremacist who has usurped the Presidency.

      • Tony

        July 22, 2013 at 10:02 AM


        It is virtually impossible to have an iota’s worth of a grasp of our ills and to write what you did. To identify Islamic Jihadists and not even mention Talmudic Jews is akin to marveling about the height of a mole hill while having one’s back to Mount Everest.

        These are strong words, but you cannot possibly have a clue.


      • Robert Christopher Laity

        July 22, 2013 at 7:05 PM

        Pray tell. What is it that “Talmudic Jews” can have done that would even come close to the viciousness and barbarism that Muslims exhibit all over the world, to such an extent that Muslims are looked upon as “Satanic” by many people?

  3. Robert Christopher Laity

    July 22, 2013 at 4:06 AM

    For a supposedly educated person of the Law, the Judge seems to have a very hard time relinquishing his belief that Obama is the “President”. Referring to Obama as “President” does a disservice to “We the People”. Obama is a usurper. There is NO ‘President” Obama:

  4. kennywally

    July 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM

    I’ll bet he doesn’t get close to General Butlers book, ” War is a Racket “!!! Part of the problem lay in the fact that clarity is hard to come by, when one sez gov’t, do they mean us, the people, or the corporation/defacto?! How many avg citizens even know the difference? How many citizens know the republic hasn’t existed in the mainstream since about 1861, when congress failed to make quorum. We’ve had nothing but obfuscation from the defacto and the controlled press ever since.
    I’m not even sure if I want to listen to this video yet.

    • Jetlag

      July 22, 2013 at 2:42 PM

      When someone says “government”, they almost always mean the employees who took an oath to serve We the People and take a regular paycheck to do the same.

      The relationship between the current government and the government before 1861 is pretty remote from most people’s thoughts.

  5. Adrian

    July 22, 2013 at 12:09 PM

    I have to keep on repeating myself.US Inc. is not a “Government”,it is a private military hunta,owned by foreign interest,who has counquered America back in 18th century,starting on 4th of July 1776.
    The Illuminaty have announced back on May 1st 1776 the coming of the NWO.
    America was their first experiment. The Trojan horse,UNITED STATES,came here to America,as
    an agent of the CROWN TEMPLER, with orders from Vatican,to set up their outpost.
    The rest is history.
    You need to STOP being ” Government lovers”,wake up to reality and behave like real Americans.
    You are not US Citizens,you are borne free,you live in a Land named America.
    This is your home.
    Nobody owns America,we have a natural right to live here,because we are here.We shall protect our
    turf as individuals and as a group.
    Remember the old question addressed to a stranger: Do you come in peace?

  6. tim

    July 22, 2013 at 2:34 PM

    What about a judge or law maker who still is active not retired. All these retired guys have alot to say now that they have nothing to lose.

  7. Michael

    July 24, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    I applaud Andrew Napolitano for what he is trying to do, and that is wake people up. How many talking heads in these replies are doing the same? Thanks Al, for the message Napolitano brings.

    • Yartap

      July 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

      Michael – I AGREE!

  8. EarlinOregon

    July 30, 2013 at 1:41 PM


    Book –

    To Run a Constitution:
    The Legitimacy of the Administrative State

    “administrative state”
    –a state bereft of legitimating principles

    In 1887, the centennial year of the American Constitution,
    Woodrow Wilson wrote that
    “it is getting to be harder to run a constitution than to frame one.”

    The context for Wilson’s comment was an essay
    calling for sound principles of administration
    that would enable government officials to “run” a constitution well.

    Wilson and his fellow civil-service reformers
    had a profound influence on the development of American administrative institutions.
    Unfortunately, the reformers
    paid more attention to the exigencies of running a constitution
    than to the Constitution itself.

    They and their intellectual progeny developed a theory of administration
    that was at odds with the theory of the Constitution.

    As a result,
    we find ourselves living today in what we often call an “administrative state”
    –a state seemingly bereft of legitimating principles
    grounded in the political thought of the framers of the Constitution.

    In To Run a Constitution, John A. Rohr takes seriously two basic premises:
    d Tocqueville’s belief that citizens are corrupted by obeying powers
    they believe to be illegitimate,
    and the view that, despite present political sentiment,
    the administrative state is here to stay.

    The book focuses on the important question of
    whether the administrative state,
    an abiding presence in American politics,
    can be justified in terms of the American constitutional tradition.

    In addressing this question,
    Rohr goes beyond considerations of case law
    to examine the principles of the Constitution
    both at its founding and in its subsequent development.

    Relying on the normative character of political “foundings,”
    Rohr analyzes three significant founding periods:

    1) the founding of the Republic, 1787-1795;
    2) the foundin of public administration, 1883-1899; and
    3) the founding of the administrative state, 1933-1941.

    He judges the last two foundings by the first in developing his argument
    that the modern administrative state can be justified in terms of
    the kind of government the framers of the Constitution envisaged.

    On the eve of the bicentennial of the Constitution,
    Rohr’s argument advances a new, normative theory of public administration
    that is intended to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,”
    in accordance with the oath of office taken by public administrators.

    It is critical reading for scholars
    in the fields of public administration, political science, and constitutional studies.

    Editorial Reviews
    From the Back Cover

    “This is a broad, sweeping, synthesizing account
    that rests on a firm grasp of constitutional history and principle.”
    –Herman Belz, coauthor of The American Constitution: Its Origin and Development

    “A very important book that should be required reading for all public administrators in the United States. . . . The scholarship is the strongest of any book published in public administration in a decade or more. It will be a classic.”–David H. Rosenbloom, author of Public Administration and Law

    About the Author
    John A. Rohr is a professor of public administration at the Center for Public Administration and Policy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
    A recipient of the ASPA Distinguished Research Award,
    he is the author of five other books,
    including Public Service, Ethics, and Constitutional Practice,
    and Founding Republics in France and America:
    A Study in Constitutional Governance.
    Rohr was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow for the 1998-99 academic year.


    • Adask

      July 30, 2013 at 4:13 PM

      I’ve only looked at a brief description of Rohr’s book. Judging from that description, Rohr believes that the administrative agencies and administrative law are necessary and desirable to “run” or “operate” a constitutional government. If so, I disagree with Rohr’s central belief.

      I know from reading the text on “Administrative Law” in American Jurisprudence, that administrative law combines all three fundamental powers of government (legislative, executive and judicial) under a single authority. If so, then there is NO SEPARATION OF POWERS under administrative law. Thus, administrative law is an absolute violation of a fundamental principle of the constitution–that the three branches of government be separate and independent. Therefore, I cannot support or justify administrative law.

  9. EarlinOregon

    July 30, 2013 at 2:48 PM


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s