How the Constitution Has Been Twisted to Undermine the Free Market | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

when Thomas Moore was defending himself in his trial for treason a trial that he knew he would lose they knew the outcome he'd be convicted and he'd be executed the alleged and proven crime was silenced his refusal to acknowledge publicly that the king of England was the head of the church on earth he knew that he could speak to posterity and he made the following argument the argument has actually lifted from the transcript of the trial and was used by Robert Bolton as play a man for all seasons and let's picked up in the movie by the same name so you may know these lines some men say the earth is round and some men say it is flat but if it is round could the king's command flatten it and if it is flat could an Act of Parliament make it round now of course he was appealing to a hand-picked jury that was paid to convict him and he was familiar with the system he had been a judge in a system where jurors were told what the outcome would be ahead of time so we obviously wasn't trying to persuade the jury of anything he was speaking for posterity for us and it's obvious that the king and the Parliament can't change the shape of the earth because of the order of things because the way the earth is formed either by natural forces of by the will of God whatever you believe started the Big Bang is out of the reach of government so his argument was there's a natural order to things and even government must be subject to that natural order this theory of natural order we call the natural law sometimes referred to as the natural law theory this was not original with more I mean this had been articulated by Aristotle and even codified by Aquinas and more would be what Moore wrote about it instead about at his trial would be picked up by John Locke and eventually Thomas Jefferson so when Jefferson writes in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights the reference to by their creator and the in alienability of Rights is the recognition of the natural law that our rights come from our humanity now whether you believe that we are the highest strongest most intelligent rational beings on the planet by virtue of natural selection or whether you believe we are the highest strongest most intelligent rational beings on the planet by virtue of God's will in either of these theories you can accept the fact that our rights come from our humanity and not from the government this is the theory of the natural law this was the embraced by every single one of the founders the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence and it was accepted by most of those who wrote and promulgated the constitution because after we fought a revolution and won the revolution and wrote the constitution the purpose of which was to define the government and confined the government define and confine at the same time there was of course in Philadelphia in 1787 a lot of disagreement over what the Constitution was going to look like in fact as you if you recall your history and I'm sure you do the delegates were sent to Philadelphia in 1787 not to write a constitution but to offer amendments to the Articles of Confederation the Articles of Confederation oh if we still had that today of course we don't [Applause] the Articles of Confederation established the sovereignty of the states with a loose confederation for truly federal purposes the principle of which in that era was defense defense against the British who they feared would try and take the country back which of course happens just a few years later in the war of 1812 so when delegates are sent to Philadelphia and they close the shutters on the windows and they don't let anybody talk to the press they're up to something and what they were up to was the crafting of an entirely new government it was not a set of amendments to the Articles of Confederation it would become the constitution in the United States the Articles actually provided such extraordinary independence on the part of the states that the state governments themselves no Saints half of them approved an enforced slavery nevertheless engaged in such monopolistic behavior and imposed such tariffs that if you were selling wheelbarrows in Hoboken New Jersey and you wanted to ship them to New York the tariff on the wheelbarrow when it landed in New York would be such that nobody would buy it from you there because it would cost twice what the wheelbarrows made in New York were so the terrorists were a very serious problem amongst the new Americans at the time of the Declaration of it at the time of the founding of the Constitution another serious problem was of course monopolies the people who had loaned money to the states to fund the armies to fight the king got themselves elected to the state legislatures so they were creditors and debtors at the same time they ran the government that owed the money to them so they decided that the best way to do this was to declare that certain of their activities were monopolies so they didn't have any competition so you had the horrific montt monstrous combination of monopolies and tariffs and basically that produced 13 different economies rather than one national economy this is at least one of the theories and economic theory for the origins of the Constitution so in order to address the problem of monopolies and tariffs the new constitution after much consternation over the natural law and where our rights come from comes out and is ratified by the thirteen states including an infamous monstrosity known as the Commerce Clause the Commerce Clause which permits the government the federal government the Congress to regulate commerce among the several states is the favorite hook for the Congress today and the courts today to hang their hat on when they want to engage in expansive federal authority so the original meaning of the Commerce Clause was to regulate the movement of goods between merchants as that crossed state lines stated differently to get rid of state tariffs so the wheelbarrow manufacturer in Hoboken could ship his wheelbarrow across the Hudson River to lower Manhattan and sell it there without being interfered with by New York state authorities that was the purpose of the Commerce Clause we know this because little Jimmy Madison they call him little because he was little I would love to stand next to him I'd look like Shaquille O'Neal little Jimmy was all a 4-foot to him and Little Jimmy was the Scrivener in Philadelphia in 1787 you see none of them kept notes except Little Jimmy little Jimmy's notes eventually of course became the document so after arguing over where do our rights come from and coming up with a compromise the compromise would be the Constitution will articulate powers for the federal government but it will restrain the federal government in the first blank amendments I say blank because the original Bill of Rights had 12 amendments and eventually it was whittled down to 10 after the first Congress was established Little Jimmy was a member of the House of Representatives from what is now Charlottesville Virginia and he was the chair of the House Committee to draft the Bill of Rights could you imagine this he wrote the Constitution and he drafted the Bill of Rights he was a believer in what we today called Madisonian government obviously it bears his name and that concept is that the federal government can only do what is specifically authorized to it in the Constitution Justice Scalia put a sort of tail on that with his theory of originalism which means that the Constitution if it is the supreme law the land can't change with the passage of time and it must mean the same thing today as was the original public understanding of it at the time it was ratified if Little Jimmy and big Nino had their way then the Commerce Clause would have its original public meaning which was giving only to Congress the power to regulate the movement of goods between merchants as they cross the interstate lines I raised my voice slightly when I say that because today the Commerce Clause very simple language Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states is used to regulate all kinds of things in fact you'd be hard for us to find anything in this room from the brightness of the light bulbs to the amount of dye that's in the ink that's on the on the walls to the thickness of the cushion on which you're sitting to the strength of the legs and the tables to the salaries that are paid to the people who manufacture everything in this room you'd be very hard-pressed to find anything that you can see from where you are now that is not regulable and regulated by the federal government or by some entity created by the federal government under the Commerce Clause and how did that happen that happened because George Washington and John Adams were part of the big government party called the Federalists Thomas Jefferson and Little Jimmy were part of a small government party called the anti-federalists they preferred to call themselves by a name which is really weird to our ears the Democratic Republicans I don't know what that would be today but that's that's what they called themselves but for the first twelve years of the country the eight years of the presidency of George Washington and the four years of the presidency of John Adams the two of them Washington Adams of course appointed the whole federal judiciary so by the time Jefferson becomes president after the contested election of 1800 I need the elections thrown to the House of Representatives in the House of Representatives election president it was of course John Adams vice president they didn't speak in the four years he was vice president do you remember how our people were elected in those days everybody ran for president just think of this today whoever won became president whoever finished second became vice-president hilary will you cover that funeral for me today so they didn't really speak to each other because they ran against each other Jefferson argued against much of what the Adams government did he argued vociferously against the Alien and Sedition Acts which of course was enacted by the government to punish speech with which it disagreed so the same government the same generation in many cases the same people that it just written in the First Amendment Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech wrote a law that abridged the freedom of speech and punished those who criticized the government eventually the Alien and Sedition Act was repealed by the same people that enacted it because when Jefferson became president and the Federalists were in the minority they were worried that the Alien and Sedition Act would be used against them so between the election and Jefferson's inauguration they repealed this monstrosity but also in that time period it is now between January and March of 1801 John Adams appointed Thomas Jefferson's cousin to become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court this is somebody that Jefferson also didn't speak to and you know his name John Marshall today is referred to as the great chief justice he's great only in the respect of having expanded the power of the federal government greatly by authoring its original decisions that set the vector of power decidedly in favor of the federal government so one of the first contests is who gets to decide the federal government's power who gets to decide what the Constitution means Tom woods has written a brilliant book arguing and it was a very very prominent argument at the time but has since been rejected by the federal courts that the states should decide what the Constitution means and what federal power is because the Constitution came into existence when the 13 states created it [Applause] this is this is not an argument that's been entirely dismissed and Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address he says let me remind you that the states created the federal government and not the other way around now if I had been the draftsman I was too young at the time but if I had been the draftsman I would have added then I didn't know him I would have added this line and the powers they gave to the federal government they can take back [Applause] [Music] [Applause] so you know that's me that's not what he said but you do have this debate raging in in as recently as January of 1981 which is Reagan's inauguration and you do have the articulation out of the mouth of the new president a recognition that the third word of the Constitution is a typo it's not really a typo but it's wrong the third word of the Constitution is We the People it should have said we the states because the whole theory was that these 13 sovereign entities would give away a little bit of their sovereignty and create a new central government and in order to make it crystal clear what they were giving it away they would write it down and the document in which they would write it down is called the Constitution but because of the fear that government would expand way beyond what it was intended to because it is human nature power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely this is a lesson of history the Bill of Rights was added the Bill of Rights of course was intended to abate the ferocious appetite of the federal government for power unfortunately it didn't work now I know that we are discussing economics this weekend and and indeed the concept of westering economics is the root and core of all that we do at the Mises institution but to understand how the government is able to interfere with free-market economics I'm going to talk to you a little bit about the Constitution today and then we'll do this we'll do this Q&A so after John Marshall rights in Marbury vs. Madison that the Federal Supreme Court not the state Supreme Court's and not the state legislatures will decide what the Constitution means the government establishes a bank and it puts one of the branches of the bank in Baltimore Maryland and the legislature of Maryland decides it's going to tax the bank now this is almost inconceivable today that a state would tax a federal entity that would love to be able to tax the federal reserve out of existence so the manager of the bank course refuses to pay the tax in a case makes its way to the Supreme Court in the issue is does the federal government have the power to establish a bank not does the state of Maryland have the power to tax any bank in the state it does but does it does the federal government have the power to establish a bank and the government argued that it could do so under a clause in the Constitution which lists the 16 specific discrete powers one of which is to regulate goods between merchants as they pass over interstate lines called the Commerce Clause and then there's the catch-all phrase sometimes called the elastic clause and it basically says to do all which is necessary and proper to carry the foregoing powers into execution so this case McCulloch versus Maryland McCulloch is the manager of the bank Maryland's the state that's trying to tax it construes the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause unfortunately it is being construed at the same hands of John Marshall who said that the federal government will determine its own powers and so John Marshall wrote in an opinion unanimously agreed to that Necessary and Proper doesn't really mean Necessary and Proper it really means needful and helpful and if they meant necessary they would have said absolutely necessary but because there's no modifier on Necessary and Proper he dialed it back to needful and helpful these two cases alone neither of which has ever been seriously challenged in the modern era and both of which are so ingrained in a can Constitutional History that those of us who study this and and practice it and write about it and talk about it take them for granted have set the federal government on the pace for the massive expansion that we know today so the states don't decide what power they gave away the federal government decides what power they took from the states and Necessary and Proper because it means needful or helpful has created an entire area of federal jurisdiction never contemplated by the framers how do we know it was never contemplated by the framers Little Jimmy Little Jimmy gave a very famous speech on the floor of the House of Representatives now known as Madison's Bank speech in which he argues hey I wrote the thing those are my notes Necessary and Proper means Necessary and Proper and the federal government does not need a bank in order for it to operate it can put its money into banks that are chartered by the states we did that intentionally so as to put up further check on the power of the federal government it is a great speech if you ever want to read it it is a masterful analysis of the concept of limited government so also an analysis of the ninth amendment which is one of my favorites because it articulates the existence of rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights which is the reflection of Thomas More and Thomas Jefferson that our rights come from our humanity and it is the government's duty to protect natural rights whether they are ticket or articulated in the bill of rights or not from these two cases of course Madisonian democracy and I used the word democracy intentionally because of the genius among us who was the honoree tomorrow night and if you haven't read his masterpiece democracy the God that failed you need to do so I'll tell you a little bit about that before I leave since I can't be with you or with the great Hans Hermann Hopper to morrow night but the concept of Madisonian democracy with the exception of the Civil War when the monster Lincoln destroyed everything that he could get his hands on the concept of Madisonian democracy survives pretty much until my fellow Princetonian the former governor of New Jersey probably the worst president in American history after Lincoln Woodrow Wilson turned Madisonian democracy on its head so Madisonian the government the federal government can only do what it is expressly authorized to do in the Constitution Wilsonian the federal government can do whatever it needs to to address a national problem and for which there is political will except that which is expressly prohibited to it in the Constitution so these are really polar opposites and I'm sorry to tell you that every president of the United States since Woodrow Wilson no matter what the president has said no matter what the times required no matter what war was being fought no matter how prosperous we may have been at the moment has been a wilsonian now I don't know if the president if the present president knows that he is a Wilsonian but he is he is in part because he inherits a government that is utterly and truly and overwhelmingly with Wilsonian I mean think about the controversy that the Congress is addressing right now and that is whether or not it should ban these kits that can turn a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon it would do so under the Commerce Clause by saying it shall be unlawful for any kit to travel over interstate lines but because the Commerce Clause permits the federal government to reach deep into intrastate commerce commerce wholly within one state and because the Congress knows that it can ban the kits by saying it shall be unlawful to manufacture or possess any instrument that alters materially the operation of a semi-automatic rifle and it can do that because of the vast expansion of the Commerce Clause which permits the Congress to regulate anything that effects interstate commerce so if you like a famous farmer named Roscoe filburn in an infamous case during World War two decided that all the wheat in your backyard would not be sold it would be ground by mrs. filburn into flour and she would bake it into baked goods for your family can that be regulated by the federal government answer yes because by not putting that wheat into interstate commerce there was theoretically an effect on Interstate Commerce and since Congress can regulate anything that affects interstate commerce and can regulate what Roscoe filburn does with his wheat in his backyard Justice Scalia before he died told me one of his goals before he would die didn't achieve this would be to overrule that infamous case called Wickard against filburn it too has expanded the commerce power think about it the government can regulate your behavior for not engage in interstate commerce because if you did then that behavior would be regulable now back to the kits on the guns I'm not gonna talk to you about guns is not an argument about guns except to say that the purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect your right to shoot deer it's to protect your right to shoot tyrants when they take over the government [Applause] and and we know that because the drafters of the second amendment had just used their weapons to shoot and kill tyrants or were the agents and the soldiers of the British King and there was no qualms about doing so but the gutless wonders in the Republican Party today have decided there's a way to get rid of these kits the turn automatic weapons and two semi-automatic weapons into automatic without having to vote why don't we just get a federal bureaucrat to promulgate a regulation invalidating the kits so prediction prediction the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms which is not responsible or answerable to the people none of them whose agents servants employees or masters has run for office will promulgate some rule which will allow the Republicans to say ah see what we did see yeah we responded to the crisis but also say to their friends in the NRA we didn't vote for anything that harmed you guys this was done by a bureaucrat very interesting as to whether these kits are even lawful because the Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller that's the case that defines the right to keep and bear arms as a personal individual pre-political right not as some collective right pre political a secular phrase for natural because it is the right to self-defense Justice Scalia actually defines it and says it is the right to own carry and use a weapon of the same technological proficiency as those owned by the bad guys and government officials [Applause] I see that my time is is drawing to a close at least for this portion of the program I'm gonna summarize all of this for you after Tom and I finished the Q&A but here's something to to ponder and maybe this will come up in the questioning period and this is this is hans asses honza's work his democracy worth it his democracy inherently so flawed the people will use democratic forces to steal property that they otherwise couldn't steal because we'd have the ability to resist you know I live in New York and New Jersey those are the two highest tax states in the Union when the taxman comes for my collective burden of 60% I can't resist the taxman and if I do you know what'll happen to me you'll never hear from me again I'll shave my head and I'll live like a in a cage for defending my own property but there's there something about democracy where the government keeps increasing and liberty keeps decreasing and the people get in the government so that they could tell everybody else how to live and take everybody else's property at Murray Rothbard another person we honor this weekend you had a funny one-liner about government so I can't take credit for this though I've modified it slightly you're sitting at home one night you're relaxing you're reading the Road to Serfdom or you're reading the revolution by Ron Paul there's a knock at the door you open the door there's a guy with a gun guy says to you give me your money I want to give it away in your name you call the police he is the police he's the taxman come to collect his do so Murray used to argue there are only three ways to achieve wealth in the Western world one is by inheritance god bless you somebody died and left you a nice farm a nice piece of property a lot of money do the right thing with it keep it away from the government or like or like most of us you work hard the sweat of your brow your intellect your muscle your hard work you trade what good what service you have what good you can produce with somebody who's willing to pay for it that's the economic model and then there's the Mafia model give me your model or give me your money or else and then Murray says which model does the government use Jefferson and Adams notwithstanding their bitter relationship in the early part of the 19th century they died in the same day they would live another 30 years after they left politics and they engaged in great correspondence one of the most telling things you can read the letters of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and in those letters among many other things Adams John Ehret but Jefferson predicts that on the long march of history government will expand and Liberty will shrink and Adams who was one of the big government people in Philadelphia basically concurs so what do we do about it well we have to be very courage very courageous we have to educate the people that we send to Washington a difficult task to do when there's really only one political party the big government party with a Democrat wing and a Republican wing but we have to get in their faces we have to make sure that the words and the energy of a guy like Ron Paul are put in the front of the noses of everybody to whom we have given the power to affect our lives and we have to make sure that people understand that human Liberty lies in the heart and as well it lies there no government no majority can take it away but like any good muscle it must do more than just lie there okay we'll take some Q&A [Applause] yes my question is comes from I believe it's Jeffrey Rogers Hummels book emancipating slaves and enslaving freemen and I believe it's in that book in which he says that the libertarian revolution of 1776 died aborning nine years later in the middle 1860s with what some would call the War of Northern Aggression comments pro/con or other well I think he stated a truism and misstatement that doesn't even have to be proven it's so it's so obvious Murray Rothbard argued I guess he said this around 1995 the last moral war ever fought was the American Revolution in 1776 because it was it was literally a war to repeal a tyrant and you know the Civil War you shouldn't hesitate to call it the War of Northern Aggression I honestly thought you were going to say the Revolutionary dreams died in Philadelphia in 1787 which is just 11 years later now it's not until 1789 that the Constitution is ratified and then in 91 the first ten amendments what we call the Bill of Rights was added but it was certainly in that secret in Room in Philadelphia where little Jimmy's words were twisted and tortured well at a proportion of what he intended I can't help going like this and I say Little Jimmy that the long march towards big government began it is certainly on its deathbed by the end of the War of Northern Aggression and that has been executed by the presidency of Woodrow Wilson what are Wilson the young man said that they hand out copies of the Constitution I'm assuming it's one of those booklets with the Declaration of Independence in it as well Woodrow Wilson had federal agents arrest people for reading the Declaration of Independence out loud on public street corners across the street from draft offices particularly the part that says when the government is not responsive to the will of the people it is their duty to alter or abolish it and when he was confronted in court with the First Amendment Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech II said I don't question that I'm not Congress doesn't restrain me I'm the president and these people were incarcerated and they stayed in jail until the end of World War one for reading aloud the document that you district Justice Scalia in a case challenging the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel law this is not the same law under which robert muller was appointed to investigate President Trump and his folks but an actual statute that existed at the time and he the the court found the statute constitutional in in that era the Attorney General went to a panel of three judges and said we needed independent prosecutor to prosecute some of the executive branch and Scalia said it doesn't make sense because delegated power and all federal powers are delegated none is original with the federal government under the Constitution delegated power cannot be delegated away without the permission of the person who originally delegated it stated differently if the Congress wants to create some entity to make laws or rules whether it's the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Reserve or the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms it needs the permission of the States that was at least Scalia's fear Justice Scalia's theory in this dissent it's the dissent it's not the it's not the majority opinion but the the majority opinion of course the rule of unintended consequences has created an enormous proliferation of agencies and administrations and subgroups that are able to do whatever they want because they're not accountable to the people to the voters they're not accountable to the states they're not accountable to the Constitution the only time their behavior is scrutinized is when you can get them in court and it's very difficult to get them into court why because every one of these agencies is vested with discretion so the threshold of challenging an agency ruling is that it abused its discretion that it went far beyond what Congress intended it to do a very very high bar to reach Supreme Court just ruled recently that the EPA abused its discretion by characterizing a mud puddle as some sort of a navigable water I'm exaggerating a little bit was it any bigger than this stage is a navigable water that they can regulate so so the monster government gets away with so much by keeping it all below the radar screen you familiar with a professor at Columbia Law School professor hamburger yes professor Philip hamburger who on this issue is very much one of us is the world's foremost authority on the abuses of the administrative state which is the phrase that those of us in the legal community refer to this vast array of the federal regulatory bureaucrats the administrative state we have the warfare state we have the welfare state we have the deep state the most pernicious of all we also have the administrative state professor hamburger has about a thousand page book I mean it's it's a doorstop but it is everything you need to know on the admits relatively new it's only about eight or nine months old it's everything you need to know when the evils of the administrative state and how all these awful bureaucrats acquired they're almost unreviewable power I can't believe I even asked the question all right who has the portable microphone do you have a question sir yeah okay how comes a travesty of civil asset forfeiture continues to pass constitutional muster well it doesn't pass constitutional muster but it enriches the government so civil a civil asset forfeiture it's a long story but I'll be I'll be very brief there's two versions of it there's state civil asset forfeiture and federal basically civil asset forfeiture is the is the seizure of of a criminal defendants assets before he's been convicted and maybe even he's never been convicted but the state still gets the asset most states have done away with that the federal government has not the federal government continues to seize assets at the time of indictment their favorite gig is to indict somebody wealthy enough to the best team of lawyers but seize his assets so that he can't he can't pay the lawyers attorney general Jeff Sessions has basically said to the State Police that in states that have prohibited civil asset forfeiture will deputize you as federal agents even go ahead and seize the property now why do cops like to seize the property they get to use it for themselves so I'm sitting in a bar one night and a guy comes up to me is judge how are you it's a former prosecutor of the county in which I was a judge he introduced me to his wife and the wife said oh this is the judge that stole the car from you now you think I stole a car from a prosecutor what the hell is this all about so the state police dragged this kid into my courtroom they said well he was caught transporting the prostitutes across the George Washington Bridge and we seized this mercedes-benz I said wait a minute is he even charged with the crime yet well no but we saw him doing it so he seized the mercedes-benz where's the Mercedes Benz the county prosecutor is driving it you guys work for the county prosecutor yes I want the keys to that mercedes-benz on this bench in an hour or we're going to arrest the county prosecutor for driving a stolen Mercedes Benz but all right so I told you I told you the second half of the story first because the police literally under the Federal Rule get to keep 80 percent of what they steal yes sir Judge Napolitano do you foresee any possibility that you might be on the Supreme Court where's Austin Peterson is he in this room now Austin Peterson worked for me in the two happiest years of my life when I had a show on Fox called freedom watch and and Austin was one of my producers and he was of course the rabble-rouser just to make sure I stayed Roth partying he is now a candidate for the United States Senate from Missouri so you should ask him if he will vote if he would vote to confirm my nomination to the Supreme Court it's a it's a flattering question but not one that one can dwell on for longer than I just did all right all the way in the back Michael so this one is for either or both of you but what do you think of the idea of hoppy ins rothbard Ian's miss s Ian's coming together to bring the fervor of the Ron Paul revolution to inject ourselves and organize and inject ourselves into the Libertarian Party Amy sees caucus within the Libertarian Party so to speak right now this this question is a plant I only say that jokingly because the young man who asked it and I discussed this at great length that's at a conference on money conference in Aspen Colorado just a couple of weeks ago I mean the Libertarian Party in the United States of course was at its height when Congressman Paul was its nominee and it has not been anything but a shadow of itself since then is the question could the Libertarian Party it properly injected with the right energy and ideological and intellectual fervor and cash ever seriously compete against the Republican Party absolutely it can absolutely not if it nominates people like the nominees the last two times around but if it nominates people like the Thomas Jefferson of our era Ron Paul all right the new rule is if you've asked the judge the question within the past two weeks you can't ask it here all right yes sir in the back meet you at the time judge why are all these so-called conservative radio talk show hosts promoting a convention to amend the Constitution that's currently inoperable why are they so hyped up about this and doesn't make you a little suspicious about what they would do to what's left of the Constitution well the last time we had a convention we thought it was going to amend the Articles of Confederation and we ended up with a monstrosity that produced the God that failed I think they think they can put Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer out of business overnight but they might be replaced with people equally as big government just their version of the government I don't think that's going to happen are you speaking of the Article five no and I know I know but there's as many there's many groups out there there's one which is the best organized and actually has resolutions from about 18 or 19 state legislatures requesting the requesting the convention I don't know if it's going to be successful but if it is we have to get ourselves elected as delegates and I'd be happy to become the chair of that convention so let me I think we can do one more we've got one more okay can we get the microphone all the way over here oh wait is it austin peterson with a question do you really have you have a question for the judge [Laughter] I have an important question I think it's sort of the elephant in the room is the biggest challenge on my campaign right now is that the Republican Party has strayed away from the old Reaganite and bush traditions of being a welcoming party towards immigration and now we're very much a sort of build the wall sort of a restriction astana Gration how should libertarians view immigration how should we sell our ideas to the american people what is the true libertarian view on immigration I don't know a good question listen or a senator Peterson I sounds nice I don't know that there is a true libertarian answer and even though I know even on the Mises board even within our Mesa within our Mises family we disagree I mean for people over from you the guy with the beard and the bald head is that the most libertarian person in the room including me and he that is that is Professor that is professor walter block of Loyola University in New Orleans and he and I disagree my own view is that the right to travel is a natural right and it's none of the government's business where you want to go but I don't think that that is the strongest political argument I think the strongest political political argument is one from compassion like the the kids that came here as babies at the hands of their parents and now our young adults and as Americanized and as vetted as any group of immigrants ever could be or ever has been take a very very cold harsh nativist attitude we're better than you because we got here before you to justify kicking them out so that's that's where I come down on that when I I'll just bring this to a close they know we'll have other things to do address young people I sometimes use humor and sometimes use fear so a little bit of humor I am seated in my office one day and the phone rings and the screen lights up and the screen mean the name of the person calling you will know this person as office is two doors to mine what the housing going in for stossel all right Johnny what is it well I have to go on a Riley tonight and I don't want to go can you take the gig what do you what do you crazy want me to go down there instead of you what why don't you want to go well because the issue is drones and I don't know anything about drones and you're a little better on this topic than I am can you go I said well I can go but we'll both get fired or at least discipline somehow let me send you some stuff to read on drones and call me back so I sent him some things to reads he calls him back okay I get it I get it again president can't kill people due process the government wants life liberty or property they have to sue you for it or try you for it only the Congress can declare war I understand that but I don't want to go something's going to happen Johnny I can't help you next morning I come in phone rings again he calls Johnny what happened well I went down to the studio where they told me to go Riley studio and Noah Riley no O'Reilly no O'Reilly they didn't tell me this he was in Los Angeles before a studio audience of a thousand people soon as I sat down in his studio in New York my face is Stossel speaking shows up on the flat screen ten times life-size and O'Reilly starts alright Stossel what's wrong with drones kill some people saves the good people yeah at the time we don't even know that these creeps are dead China goes yeah that's true that's true but the president can't kill whoever he wants and he can't start a war on his own in the Constitution that's only the Congress can declare war and if the government wants life liberty or property it has to follow due process otherwise bill the president could use a drone to come after you wait a minute wait a minute Stossel did you get these arguments from Judge Napolitano [Applause] so cause well as a matter of fact I did big deal he's not on the Supreme Court the best he can do is Fox & Friends so you have to have I mean I sent that to Roger Ailes our boss at the time and he watched the clip he called me back he goes it's the funniest thing I've ever heard come out of all Riley's mouth you have to have not only a thick skin but a sense of humor my heroes st. Thomas More as he was about to be executed said to the executioner you know what I need a little bit of help going up the scaffold but I won't need any help coming down I expect that I will die when I do faithful to my first principles to our first principles in my bed in my house surrounded by people that love me but not all of you particularly the young people will have that luxury some of you will die in a government prison faithful to first principles and some of you may die faithful the first principles in a government Town Square to the sound of the government's trumpets blaring when the time comes to make that horrible decision stay faithful the first principles or give in to the government you will know what to do because freedom lies in the human heart and while it is there no tyranny of the majority and no tyrant can take it away but you must exercise it it must do more than lie there thank you and God love you [Applause] [Music] you

Channel: misesmedia

Views: 49,855

Keywords: Napolitano, Legal, Law, Constitution, BIll of Rights, Freedom, Property, Peace, Free Market, Capitalism, Rights, Natural Law, Government, State, Economics, Austrian School, Liberty, Mises, Rothbard

Id: xbtrVlMqPRw

Length: 52min 12sec (3132 seconds)

Published: Tue Oct 17 2017