01/14/2010 Judge Napolitano’s “The Constitution and Freedom” Part 4

Here is part 4 of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s series called “The Constitution and Freedom”. Today’s segment he discusses the Constitution and the courts.

NOTE: You can watch the entire series here.


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

Embed Code:
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=3968117&w=400&h=249"></script>

-->

4 Comments

  1. ClayRamsay Said,

    January 15, 2010 @ 11:33 pm

    Judicial Review. Not in the Constitution. Considered but rejected by the Constitutional Convention. After 200 hundred years, it is a well established fact of life. Few people today realize that the Founders did not intend for judiciary to have this role. What do you see, Judge, as the best way to dethrone this small oligarchy that rules our nation?

  2. ClayRamsay Said,

    January 15, 2010 @ 11:34 pm

    As I understand it, Jefferson believed that the final arbiter of Constitutional enforcement would be the People, through elected and appointed representatives. He did not foresee the 17th amendment, which neutered representation of state governments in Congress, thus eliminating one check one Federal abuses; nor did he foresee the art and science of the gerrymander, which allows representatives to select their voters, rather than the other way around. Thus we have come to a situation diametrically opposed to the plan of the Founders, wherein a very small, unelected body interprets the "Supreme Law of the Land", and is virtually beyond restraint or reproof, while the legislative checks of a vigorous republic have been removed.

  3. ClayRamsay Said,

    January 15, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

    It seems to me that in our present circumstances, rule by judicial fiat can be circumvented only when the People are either apathetic or highly outraged and vocal. A recent Court ruling that has virtually no effect due to apathy is the Beck decision prohibiting unions from forcing members to support via their dues political causes with which they disagree. The Federal government has never made any effort to enforce this decision, and the little union guy today will have to fight to win on this point, and he will probably lose. On a key constitutional issue today, I believe that a popular, articulate and persuasive president, on an issue with popular support, could unilaterally overturn the Supreme Court, somewhat as Jackson did in his famously terse rejection of judicial review. For instance, if popular sentiment continues to grow in the pro-life direction, with support in Congress behind him, a president could explain that his administration would not enforce Roe v. Wade, and that it would henceforth be a decision left to state legislatures, as the Founders intended. An articulate, well informed president could explain that a) judicial review was rejected by the Founders, and b) Roe is an outrageous abuse of a practice which is unconstitutional itself.

  4. ClayRamsay Said,

    January 15, 2010 @ 11:36 pm

    I think that, short of a popular uprising at the ballot box, the only way to begin to restore constitutional government is by various states' insistence on the enforcement of their rights under the 10th amendment. To that end, I hope you will be in Richmond on Monday, July 18th for traditional Lobby Day at the state Capitol. Various Tea Party and 10th Amendment groups will be there to support Bob Marshall's HB10, which would protect Virginia citizens from Federal intervention in their health care decisions. There are also two bills, I believe, being introduced that would eliminate Federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of products made and sold within Virginia.