Napolitano Blasts Feds’ ‘Massive, Stalinistic-Like Use of Force’ in Nevada Ranch Standoff

by Fox News Insider// Apr 23 2014 // 10:50pm

As seen on Hannity

Judge Napolitano was on “Hannity” tonight to discuss the Nevada ranch standoff, eminent domain, and the percentage of land owned by the federal government.

 

Napolitano said that the government should file a judgment against Cliven Bundy, and when he passes away or sells his property, the government will get the judgment plus interest.
So why won’t they do that?
“The government, instead of using the least force necessary, which is what the rule of law is, is using the most force possible because they want to intimidate the Bundys – I’m convinced he cannot be intimidated – they want to intimidate others, and they’re probably a little unsure of themselves, Sean, and so they’re compensating for that lack of surety, of certainty, with this massive, Stalinistic-like use of force.”
Hannity and Napolitano also discussed recent cases in which the government is seizing private property under eminent domain.
“Unfortunately, the law has changed and it has changed in a totalitarian direction,” Napolitano said.
The Bureau of Land Management is now reportedly eyeing property along the Red River, which Napolitano said is a big mistake. He said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is a “tenacious defender of personal liberty and property rights.” Napolitano believes that we will see a vastly different reaction in Texas than in Nevada. He said the state government will probably take legal action and maybe even use force.
Hannity and Napolitano touched on the latest figures on percentages of land owned by the federal government, many of which are very high. In 2010, the U.S. government owned 81 percent of land in Nevada, for example.
“The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states whose borders it exists, period,” Napolitano said.

A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed health care bill.Read his conclusions

A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed health care bill.

Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish....

This is stunning!
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional.

What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business,and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred,or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However , that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of
the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas