It's true -- some of that money was mine (5 ozs of silver).

Steve is the Director of Development for the Campaign for Liberty. That money was what people paid/donated at the event in St. Louis. Over 1000 people were there, including the Lt. Gov of Missouri.

Also, Judge Andrew Napolitano is the single greatest living individual on this planet, so I would never consider doubting anything he says, ever.

You really think it is a violation of the law for them to ask???? They can't require an answer, but that doesn't mean that it is illegal for them to ask. That's like saying you can't ask a murder suspect if he committed the murder because he has the right to not answer. Police should be charged with treason every time they question a suspect, right?

If they mislead you that you're forced to answer certain questions, particularly personal/private questions like how much money is that? they absolutely should be reprimanded...but they almost never are unless you are a celeb/athlete and the media gets hold of it (see Ryan Moats)

fwiw David Boaz (VP of CATO institute) came to Drexel a few days ago and this whole situation was brought up. He mentioned that the TSA has already issued a formal apology, and the employee who held this poor guy is on paid administrative leave while they investigate.

I don't remember the audio word for word, but I do remember them being very careful not to say he had to legally answer any questions.

I've dealt with cops who do the exact same thing, insinuate that you have to answer, and say everything short of "you have to answer". They know what they can and can't say, and they haaaate it when they come up against someone who knows they know.

Ah, yes, thank goodness RP supporters aren't trying to bring down the government.. Why would law enforcement think anything of the sort? =P

paid leave seems like the best thing ever, doesn't it?

Whew, glad that's over and the TSA has apologized. I mean, it's not like they have ever done anything like this before.

It is a violation of law to use intimidation, the threat of force and the unjustified threat of the DEA (nothing indicated drugs) to compel a citizen to answer a question that they are not legally required to answer. The law enforcement agents refused to say that he wasn't legally required, instead they cursed at him, ridiculed him and threatened him.

It is not a violation to ask a question. It is, when you use force and coercion.

It's not my opinion that the TSA acted illegally, it is opinion of an ACLU attorney and a life-tenured Superior Court Judge in NJ.

Police should be charged with treason every time they violate Natural Rights, which is daily. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Furthermore, perhaps you could point to which of 17 distinct powers delegated to the Federal Government allow them to create a TSA?

If it's really needed, then we should vote it into our social contract by passing a Constitutional Amendment. Until then, it's illegal.

Haha. Of course, my quote is from the Declaration of Independence, known widely as the Right of Revolution. In France, their Organic Law is explicitly mentioned as having Constitutional force. In the US, our Organic Law is listed in the US Code but there's debate on whether it has legal force.

If you believe the country's founding document, which the Congress voted to adopt, does has legal force, than it is not only the law but our duty to "alter or abolish" any such government that violates Natural Rights. If you are willing to die to protect the individual's right to exist and to be left alone (i.e. the 4th amendment), then you are a true American.

You should watch Adam Kokesh, Iraq War Veteran, amazing speech -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_gcwVcqCcc

And Judge Napolitano talking about the Right of Revolution -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5KJ2aD8F0

Wait - I'm about 100% sure that the United States Congress never voted to adopt the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson started writing it on June 11 and gave it to the Congress on June 28th. They voted on July 2.

If your suggestion is that the Continental Congress =! the US Congress, then ok. I suppose then you celebrate the birth of the US as 1789 when Washington became President and don't celebrate July 4th, 1776.

But implying that the Declaration has no legal authority is like saying DNA has no effect on your body, but then still celebrating the National Genome Day every year.

It's legal authority was implied, in France their Organic Law is specifically written with Constitutional authority. In America, the founders just assumed people wouldn't be that stupid to suggest that the founding document of our nation has no legal authority.

It seems you're entirely clear on the history of the US. As such, I'm not sure how you can say that the Declaration of Independence is the founding document of our "nation", when that nation did not exist until 20 some years later. The US Constitution is the founding document of our nation, and it makes no mention of the Declaration of Independence. Yes, a Congress voted for the Declaration of Independence, but as you stated, it was the Continental Congress, not the Congress of the United States. I do, indeed, celebrate July 4th as the day when one people made known to the world that they would not tolerate tyranny any longer. The history of the American Revolution and the creation of the United States is such an awesome story, I don't see a need to fabricate romantic ideas.

I know that they would love it to be but realizing that our government is ****ed and working to change it is not illegal

Oh the irony of defining the violation of the Constitution or Declaration as treason when that definition would be a violation of the Constitution. Awesome. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

There is no law prohibiting carrying any amount of cash anywhere within the US, even across state lines, even on airplanes, anywhere. No. Law. Period.

There is a law that if you take over $10K out of the country you have to fill out a form and declare it, but you can do so with any amount of cash. That does not mean you won't be questioned about it if you carry ridiculous and suspicious amounts of cash. Sometimes law enforcement may even confiscate it on suspicion of the money being ill-gotten unless you can prove otherwise. Then you may have a mess to get it back.

It's a complete myth that you can't carry any amount of cash you damn well please on an airline. No law.

Oh the joys of someone educated with propaganda!

And this is the definition because you say it is?

Definition of Treason from the Constitution - "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Definition from a Dictionary - "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies."

What truly is ironic is not realizing that Violation of the Constitution is a Violation of Natural Rights which is what the Declaration is declaring. It's acknowledging that our rights come from God not the King or government. A violation of that is a violation of the spirit, nature, being and existence of the Constitution.

The Declaration is considered the organic law and is listed and referenced in the US Code.

Oh and Judge Napolitano, who is a scholar, says that it is treason for a government agent to cease to acknowledge Natural Rights. If war destroys a nation, then any act that destroys a nation's fundamental basis is tantamount to "levying War against them".

Judge Napolitano is probably the only person who has read the entire USA PATRIOT ACT 3 times and the TARP documents.

Did you go to public school or a public university in the US?

Correct.

Where is this in the US code?

Napolitano is awesome, but just because he says something doesn't make it fact, and him being a 'scholar' also does not make it fact. Plenty of scholars say plenty of things which aren't always correct.

War doesn't necessarily destroy a nation. That was quick. My real concern here is that you're apparently a libertarian, but you've taken a very broad view of Article III Section 3.3. Broad interpretation, which yours most certainly is, is usually left to liberals. Do you also believe that the commerce clause and general welfare clause justify the increase of government powers over the past 70 years?

Not sure what this has to do with the Declaration of Independence?

This is what I am talking about. The history of the American Revolution and French Revolution were based on a fundamental idea that our rights weren't from the King or the government, but from our Creator. This is the Natural Law. I am not fabricating any romantic ideas, I'm simply saying that the America is based on Natural Rights and today we have a liberal democracy without Natural Rights (or what is known as the transition from the democratic man to the democratic personality). This is a fact.

I understand your point. But it is not true.

See Compiled Statutes of the United States -
http://books.google.com/books?id=L-Y...lepage#PPR1,M1

The collected statutes of the US include the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution, which are all listed in the US Code as the organic law.

In France, the organic law specifically has Constitutional force.

Wikipedia: "Under the current Constitution of France, organic laws are a short, fixed list of statutes (as of 2005, there are about 30 of them), whose existence is provisioned by the text of the Constitution itself. Those special statutes are of constitutional scope according to the framing of the French Constitution (especially its preambles), and also have constitutional force."

The US founders thought that the preamble of the Declaration would have implied constitutional force.

Also, watch Judge Napolitano say that the Declaration is the law -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5KJ2aD8F0

So because a private company (West Publishing) reprinted the declaration of independence in their version of the code, then it has the full effect of law??? Did you notice that also include under the heading "Organic Laws of the United States of America" was "Analytical Index to the Constitution of the Unites States..."? Do you think that index is law? Does it have the same effect of the Constitution (also in that heading?)

It's in the beginning, but they've may have changed it in other volumes.

Here it is -
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...ndependence%27)

Hawaii and Alaska both say this:

and adopted by a vote of the people of Hawaii in the election held on November 7, 1950, is hereby found to be republican in form and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...ndependence%27)

You can search here for other instances -
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

You are right about that -- probably the majority of scholars. But again this is a consequence of education, so it's not shocking surprise the most don't understand Natural Rights. But Napolitano does. I don't care about all these other theories -- Napolitano totally understands Natural Rights, so he can't ever say anything wrong if it's in defense of our right to exist and our right to be left alone.
Your arguing semantics.

Economic Integration, which has been the US policy since WWII (see the Marshall Plan, Truman's Point Four), systematically undermines the US Constitution and our sovereignty. Like several MEPs said, the Treaty of Lisbon (i.e. the 6th step, Complete Economic Integration) would have reversed what the French Revolution accomplished. This does destroy a nation.

I'm not anything but an American with Natural Rights. Call me a classical liberal, a Jeffersonian Republican, a libertarian, a Jacobin -- whatever. You surely know that the Democrats were the party of limited government and were first called Republicans? These words you use don't mean what you think they do.

And no, the commerce clause and general welfare clause do not justify the increase of government. The 20th century was full of unconstitutional, illegal acts. Wars for peace and a lot of horrible ideas. FDR, Wilson, both Bushes and LBJ were horrible presidents.

Basically the reason you can't interpret those clauses like the modern-liberals do is because it inherently violates the idea that the individual has the capability to learn, know and govern himself. It violates the essence of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. It makes government more remote, and the further away you are from a problem the least you understand it and the least you care to solve it.

I brought this up because of the scholarly comment. The point being is that Judge Napolitano has read the law, knows the law, he reads what others don't read, so he clearly is scholarly and while his interpretations might not mesh with a person educated by the government, is that really a surprise?

What exactly are you defending? America as a liberal democracy without natural rights?

I did notice who published the book.

Can you read who publishes this website?
http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/Organic%20Laws/

Download this file-
Friday, February 22, 2008 6:05 PM 34695 decind.pdf

Try this website too -
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...ndependence%27)

Did you read these words - Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives?

Do you see where it says - CITE - USC THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - 1776 ? USC stands for US Code, it's also in the domain if that helps validate it.

If you went to public school, perhaps you should read the Closing of the American Mind by Professor Allan Bloom or research the Reece Commission and the American Historical Assocation (www.historians.org).

I probably shouldn't even respond to comments like yours. The argument isn't whether the Declaration is in the organic law, it obviously is. The argument is whether the organic law has constitutional force.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Declaration has no force of law under our current constitution, but it is often used for context and historical background.

Cotting v. Godard

The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence."

This statement from a ruling in 1901 has been reaffirmed multiple times in other cases.

Okay. The Constitution specifically defines what law is the supreme "law of the land" so to speak. Any guess as to what that is??

A) Treaties
B) The Constitution and laws made pursuant to the Constitution
C) Organic Laws
D) A&B
E) All of the Above

Good post spadebidder. And that is the debate.

Your post proves the Declaration was the "first official action of this nation". It also is referencing "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as principles not having the force of organic law.

I am referring to this line: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles"

"As the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 expressed it, natural law taught that the people were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and could alter or abolish government “destructive” of those rights."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

The only question is if the government is being destructive of those rights. If it is, then there is no real moral or legal argument against the Right of Revolution unless you pretend we can change a tyrannical government by democracy.

The Constitution declares Treason a crime and defines it as levying war against the United States or aiding the enemies of the United States.