Judge Andrew Napolitano on Chaotic Courts and 'Unconstitutional' Justice in the United States

Judge and constitutional law professor, Andrew P. Napolitano concludes both of the one term Illinois Senators who became US Presidents are more Dictators than elected Presidents.

The Daily Bell, Sunday, June 06, 2010 – with Scott Smith

thedailybell.com/1108/Judge-Andrew-Napolitano-on-Chaotic-Courts-and-Unconstitutional-Justice-in-the-United-States.html

The Judge concludes from the evidence, with many scholars and books, such as America’s Caesar - by
G. L. Durand and Abraham Lincoln - by Lochlainn Seabrook

“I think War Between the States was fought over the issue of federal dominance. I think slavery was not the reason for the War Between the States. I think that Lincoln was a dictator who was terrified that by the loss of tariffs from southern ports – about 55 million dollars a year in 1860. it was a huge portion of the federal government’s income, which consisted at the time of tariffs, user fees and land sales. It was the loss of those ports that caused Lincoln to wage war against the states. I don’t think it was the Constitution that facilitated war. I think it was monster government that facilitated the War Between the States. I think slavery would have been eradicated on its own, much as it had been in Puerto Rico and Brazil and Portugal and Great Britain and even years earlier in western Europe.”

On Obama:

"Daily Bell: Does President Barack Obama understand the Constitution in your opinion?

Judge Napolitano: I don’t think so, unless the Barack Obama that we witness in the White House is putting on an act. I mean to him the Constitution is no impediment to the exercise of judicial power."

  1. Lincoln was never a senator. The credibility of the rest of post goes down from there.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:2, topic:201899"]
1. Lincoln was never a senator. The credibility of the rest of post goes down from there.

[/quote]

And anyone who does not realize that the primary cause of the War was Slavery lacks credibility.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:2, topic:201899"]
1. Lincoln was never a senator. The credibility of the rest of post goes down from there.

[/quote]

"War Between the States" and "slavery was not the reason" cinches it for me.

These people, who are bitter that the Confederacy lost the war and hate the United States on that account, will never go away, using whatever excuses they can to shore up their belief in the "Noble Cause."

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:4, topic:201899"]
"War Between the States" and "slavery was not the reason" cinches it for me.

These people, who are bitter that the Confederacy lost the war and hate the United States on that account, will never go away, using whatever excuses they can to shore up their belief in the "Noble Cause."

[/quote]

I wouldn't say that. It is a common argument among free market libertarians: that the reasons for the war were more financial than moral.

Napolitano is okay, but yearning for the old Articles of Confederation kinda creeps me out.

Meant to use the term Congressman, but your point it well taken that he only served a single term in the US House of Representatives.

[quote="LookAWayDixieLd, post:1, topic:201899"]
Judge and constitutional law professor, Andrew P. Napolitano concludes both of the one term Illinois Senators who became US Presidents are more Dictators than elected Presidents.

The Daily Bell, Sunday, June 06, 2010 – with Scott Smith

"I think War Between the States was fought over the issue of federal dominance. I think slavery was not the reason for the War Between the States. I think that Lincoln was a dictator who was terrified that by the loss of tariffs from southern ports – about 55 million dollars a year in 1860. it was a huge portion of the federal government's income, which consisted at the time of tariffs, user fees and land sales. It was the loss of those ports that caused Lincoln to wage war against the states. I don't think it was the Constitution that facilitated war. I think it was monster government that facilitated the War Between the States. I think slavery would have been eradicated on its own, much as it had been in Puerto Rico and Brazil and Portugal and Great Britain and even years earlier in western Europe."

On Obama:

"Daily Bell: Does President Barack Obama understand the Constitution in your opinion?

Judge Napolitano: I don't think so, unless the Barack Obama that we witness in the White House is putting on an act. I mean to him the Constitution is no impediment to the exercise of judicial power."

[/quote]

This from Encyclopedia.com:
"The prairie lawyer emerged again into politics in 1854, when he was caught up in the rising quarrel over slavery. He stoutly opposed the policy of Stephen A. Douglas and particularly the Kansas-Nebraska Act . In a speech at Springfield, repeated at Peoria, he attacked the compromises concerning the question of slavery in the territories and invoked the democratic ideals contained in the Declaration of Independence. In 1855 he sought to become a Senator but failed.

He had already realized that his sentiments were leading him away from the Whigs and toward the new Republican party, and in 1856 he became a Republican. He quickly came to the fore in the party as a moderate opponent of slavery who could win both the abolitionists and the conservative free-staters, and at the Republican national convention of 1856 he was prominent as a possible vice presidential candidate. Two years later he was nominated by the Republican party to oppose Douglas in the Illinois senatorial race.

Accepting the nomination (in a speech delivered at Springfield on June 16), Lincoln gave a ringing declaration in support of the Union: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The campaign that followed was impressive. Lincoln challenged Douglas to a series of debates (seven were held), in which he delivered masterful addresses for the Union and for the democratic idea. He was not an abolitionist, but he regarded slavery as an injustice and an evil, and uncompromisingly opposed its extension."

So, Lincoln was not a Senator and he was involved in those famous Douglas debates with a view against slavery.
Any discussion that compares Lincoln with Obama is automatically void IMHO, unless it points out how incredibly different they are as presidents.

Their are many people who do not want to face the truth or discover it. Just like the fact that the US is now 12 - 13 Trillion Dollars in debt and the Leftist are still spending our once great nation into financial colapse and all the while trying to blame the previous fiscally moderate administration.:shrug::rolleyes:

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:4, topic:201899"]
"War Between the States" and "slavery was not the reason" cinches it for me.

These people, who are bitter that the Confederacy lost the war and hate the United States on that account, will never go away, using whatever excuses they can to shore up their belief in the "Noble Cause."

[/quote]

Another problem is his assertion that Lincoln started the war over fears of losing tarrifs.

The tarrifs is a usual boogeyman put forth but a little research shows it to be a myth. The tarrifs in effect in 1861 had recived more support from Southern congressmen than Northern congesssmen. The so Called Tarrif of abominations was over 20 years before and even then Henry Clay admited the the dispute was a stalking horse for the Slavery Issue.

And last but not least the South started the War when they fired on Ft Sumpter.

Judge Nepalitono should read the articles of secession of the Various Southern States -they made no secret that they were seceding primarily over Slavery

[quote="livnlern, post:7, topic:201899"]
This from Encyclopedia.com:
"The prairie lawyer emerged again into politics in 1854, when he was caught up in the rising quarrel over slavery. He stoutly opposed the policy of Stephen A. Douglas and particularly the Kansas-Nebraska Act . In a speech at Springfield, repeated at Peoria, he attacked the compromises concerning the question of slavery in the territories and invoked the democratic ideals contained in the Declaration of Independence. In 1855 he sought to become a Senator but failed.

He had already realized that his sentiments were leading him away from the Whigs and toward the new Republican party, and in 1856 he became a Republican. He quickly came to the fore in the party as a moderate opponent of slavery who could win both the abolitionists and the conservative free-staters, and at the Republican national convention of 1856 he was prominent as a possible vice presidential candidate. Two years later he was nominated by the Republican party to oppose Douglas in the Illinois senatorial race.

Accepting the nomination (in a speech delivered at Springfield on June 16), Lincoln gave a ringing declaration in support of the Union: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The campaign that followed was impressive. Lincoln challenged Douglas to a series of debates (seven were held), in which he delivered masterful addresses for the Union and for the democratic idea. He was not an abolitionist, but he regarded slavery as an injustice and an evil, and uncompromisingly opposed its extension."

So, Lincoln was not a Senator and he was involved in those famous Douglas debates with a view against slavery.
Any discussion that compares Lincoln with Obama is automatically void IMHO, unless it points out how incredibly different they are as presidents.

[/quote]

Napolitano who is a recognized Constitutional Scholar is pointing out that neither Lincoln or Obama understand the Constitution and were in the power grab business not the business of consensus building.

[quote="scipio337, post:5, topic:201899"]
I wouldn't say that. It is a common argument among free market libertarians: that the reasons for the war were more financial than moral.

[/quote]

Whether one is a libertarian or not, that argument is valid for most past wars IMO.

[quote="LookAWayDixieLd, post:8, topic:201899"]
Their are many people who do not want to face the truth or discover it. Just like the fact that the US is now 12 - 13 Trillion Dollars in debt and the Leftist are still spending our once great nation into financial colapse and all the while trying to blame the previous fiscally moderate administration.:shrug::rolleyes:

[/quote]

I could not agree more BUT Napalitano was trying to make that point using a terrbile , fact deficient analogy.

[quote="estesbob, post:9, topic:201899"]
Another problem is his assertion that Lincoln started the war over fears of losing tarrifs.

The tarrifs is a usual boogeyman put forth but a little research shows it to be a myth. The tarrifs in effect in 1861 had recived more support from Southern congressmen than Northern congesssmen. The so Called Tarrif of abominations was over 20 years before and even then Henry Clay admited the the dispute was a stalking horse for the Slavery Issue.

And last but not least the South started the War when they fired on Ft Sumpter.

Judge Napolitano should read the articles of secession of the Various Southern States -they made no secret that they were seceding primarily over Slavery

[/quote]

Although the US accounted for less than 5% of the African Slave trade, no other nation went to war to "Free the Slaves" the Judge is correct others should read the complete history and not some revised sliver of it if they want to be fully educated on a subject.

[quote="estesbob, post:12, topic:201899"]
I could not agree more BUT Napalitano was trying to make that point using a terrbile , fact deficient analogy.

[/quote]

Ok, I guess, I am not following you on this. How do you mean this?

[quote="LookAWayDixieLd, post:14, topic:201899"]
Ok, I guess, I am not following you on this. How do you mean this?

[/quote]

Lincoln wasnt a senator, lincoln did not start the war and the war was not about tarriffs. so when you start out with glaring erros like that why should i trust his opinion?

What are you talking about? The primary issue was states’ rights…regarding slavery… :stuck_out_tongue:

The North went to war to preserve the Union. The South seceded ovleft the Union over Slavery. No slavery issue -no war. I suggest you read what was said by Southern Leaders before the war and not by the revisionist History advanced after war,

Sorry, a Constitutional Scholar says you are wrong and calling out Lincoln as a dictator. You can find the same people saying that Slavery was not the issue, it was just the politically correct way to wage war and force the South to stay. Lincoln proved to us that Might Makes Right.

If you want to adhere to one set of books and quotes go ahead, but others like the New Jersey, born and raised Judge want to understand the complete history.

He’s wrong. Obama is a constutional Scholar also and I most certainly dont take as Gospel everything he says.

It is most definitely incorrect to state that “no other nation” went to war over slavery – there is another example, much earlier than the United States, and that is Haiti.

What is the complete history you’d have us read? I think saying the Civil War is about slavery is more correct than all the other economic, cultural and political explanations that attempt to mitigate slavery’s role. Trying to write slavery out of the history of the Civil War makes the 30 years that preceded the Civil War almost non-sensical. After all what did the Kansas-Nebraska Act try to settle? What was the Missouri Compromise really about? Why were southerners upset over the admission of California to the Union?

When the South finally did secede the Constitution of the Confederate States did one thing, above all others, quite well and that was protect the institution of slavery. They made sure there was no mistaking what the South wanted to protect and it went beyond a mere “way of life.”

Any other attempted explanation misses the point of the Civil War.

ChadS

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.