NAPOLITANO: Shoot the Drones!
Can folks shoot these beasts out of the sky? The uncomfortable answer is: yes and no
BY JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO
The skies over New Jersey have been littered with strange flying objects during the past two weeks; and the feds are either hiding the truth from terrified folks on the ground or scratching their collective heads along with the rest of us. Since early December, there have been between 3,000 and 5,000 reports of large drones — some about the size of a pickup truck. They have three or four arms, at the ends of which are very bright lights.
The drone I saw over the northwest tip of the state appeared to come toward me and then stood perfectly still. Then — in a heartbeat — it was gone. I didn't immediately call the police but spoke with them through back channels. The New Jersey State Police dispatched a helicopter — manned by two troopers — to pursue this beast but not to interfere with it. As their helicopter approached, the drone fled from them and seemed to disappear.
FINKELSTEIN: ISRAEL CREATED AN APOCALYPSE INSIDE A CONCENTRATION CAMP
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy — who had no use for the Bill of Rights during the pandemic four years ago — sees no threat to public safety or public peace. The White House — which must know the origin and nature of these things — also professes ignorance. President-elect Donald Trump — in this instance, a man after my own heart — opined that if this happens on his watch, he'd order the drones shot down.
Don't expect that from President Joe Biden. Remember the two weeks during which we all watched a huge Chinese "weather" balloon make its way from Alaska to South Carolina, only to have it shot down over the Atlantic? That was a manifestation of the Biden attitude about strange and terrifying flying objects.
Can folks shoot these beasts out of the sky? The uncomfortable answer is: yes and no.
Here is the backstory.
As recently as 2008, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to self-defense is pre-political. Stated differently, it is a natural right that existed before the government, it exists in the absence of government, it derives from our humanity and the government cannot abridge it absent due process. It is also expressly protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Thus, since this natural right is akin to the freedom of speech and religion, neither legislation nor executive command nor even a constitutional change can take this right away.
Only due process — a jury trial at which the government proves personal individual fault — can interfere with a natural right. A thief who robs a bank has violated the natural rights of the depositors and owners of the bank. The thief has given up his natural right to be free and, upon conviction, loses that right for a term of years. Short of this voluntary waiver of rights by impairing the rights of another, natural rights are real and permanent.
PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO OUR ANNUAL FUNDRAISER
Thomas Jefferson recognized this when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are "endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." He went on to argue that the reason we have established governments is to protect our natural rights — and when the government fails to do so, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
In the same Supreme Court opinion in which the court held that self-defense is a natural right, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that individuals can defend themselves using the same mechanical or technological means as bad guys do or as the government does. This was not always the case. From 1934 until the Scalia opinion in 2008, the court had embraced the myth that the right to self-defense is collective and not individual. Stated differently, under this now rejected and farcical big-government theory, only the government can protect you.
Since the Scalia opinion, individuals can protect themselves from bad guys and from the government when it fails to protect natural rights.
Now, back to the drones over New Jersey.
The same Supreme Court that ruled that self-defense is a personal natural individual right has also ruled that all power in the federal government comes from the Constitution and from no other source. Nowhere in the Constitution did the states give up to Congress control of safety in the airspace over your house.
Yet, Congress has given itself the power to control air safety and then gave it away to a federal administrative agency, which is also unmentioned in the Constitution. Stated differently, Congress has purported to emasculate the powers of the states to protect the folks in the states.
This explains the reluctance of the New Jersey State Police and even the New York Police Department to disable or capture or chase away these drones.
Congress has made us helpless before whomever is terrifying the populace. This is contrary to the reason for which we have government. The states formed the federal government and not the other way around. When they did so, they delegated only 16 discrete powers to it, and they retained all other powers. Among the powers retained is public safety.
Can Congress negate the power of the states to protect us and simultaneously negate the right of all persons to protect themselves? The short answer is: NO. The lamentable answer is we have allowed Congress to do so.
Will I shoot down the next drone that flies over my home when the state claims it cannot do so and the feds tell me to mind my own business? If I did, I'd be responsible for the natural and probable consequences of such an act, including personal injury and property damage to those on the ground. The better way to address this is for the states to chase and capture these devices, in defiance of an incompetent federal government. If they won't, I might just take my chances with a New Jersey jury.
To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit JudgeNap.com
Recently, Elon Musk announced that his artificial intelligence program GROK, soon to be running on X Premium, will provide a summary to the active legislation on the Congressional docket.
GROK will summarize the basic ideas of the proposed legislation, and make it accessible to the public. Hopefully, this will allow the citizens to understand the "real purpose" of these laws.
The member of Congress, who, has admittedly not read the proposed legislation, may get to see more of what it’s about, if they have the time look, before making it the law of the land.
Everyone should get on board and ask Mr. Musk to include the line item RATIFY / ANNUL / UNDECIDED feature so that the will of the people can be made known about each and every matter of government importance.
All new laws must be Ratified in order to be put on the books or Annulled to take them off the books.
But why stop there?
The business of the State Legislatures should be included too.
The twelve thousand county commissioner’s country wide vote on hundreds of billions of dollars of activity every month…. And the local school board needs help too.
# A1. Should the US Congress allow the Citizens they represent to ratify or annul the laws, programs and policies they are governed by?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Undecided
# A2. As lawful agents of the Citizens should the US Congress and the State Legislatures create an enhanced voting franchise specifically designed to enable the demonstrably sapient segment of the population to ratify or annul the Laws, Policies and Programs of their own government bodies?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Undecided
# 1. Who gets to vote in the: general election?
a. citizens only - Yes No
b. natural born citizens only - Yes No
c. natural born citizens with four natural born grandparents - Yes No
d. naturalized citizens (legal immigrants) - Yes No
e. legal immigrants not yet naturalized - Yes No
f. anyone with a drivers license – Yes - No
# 2. Ages of Voter
g. minimum18 years
h. minimum 21 years
i. minimum 25 years
j. minimum 30 years
k. minimum 33 years
l. minimum 35 years
# 3. Sex of Voter
a. Male – Yes - No
b. Female – Yes - No
c. Non – Binanry - Yes - No
d. Transgender - Yes - No
# 4. Competence of Voter
e. property owners net value over $50,000 - Yes - No
f. property owners net value over $250,000 - Yes - No
g. tax exempt persons – Yes - No
h. those receiving welfare / food stamps – Yes - No
i. those with unpaid child support obligations - Yes - No
j. those receiving WIC – Yes - No
k. those receiving Section 8 – Yes - No
l. those working for government bureaucracies – Yes - No
m. those that will pay a $5000 poll tax - Yes - No
n. those that have paid a minimum of $5000 per year of tax for their combined jurisdictions in excess of any received via SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ATFWDC - Yes - No
# 5. Genetic presence of Voter
a. Male without children – Yes - No
b. Male with children – Yes - No
c. Male with children plural vote – Yes - No
d. Female without children – Yes - No
e. Female with children – Yes - No
f. Female with children plural vote – Yes - No
g. Only married males with children, never divorced can vote. – Yes - No
# 6. Who should be trusted with the responsibility and power of public
office?
a. Only those authorized to vote in the general election - Yes No
b. Male without children – Yes - No
c. Male with children – Yes - No
d. Female without children – Yes - No
e. Female with children – Yes - No
f. Only married males with children, never divorced can hold public office – Yes - No
g. Depends on the office - Yes - No
h. minimum18 years - Yes - No
i. minimum 21 years - Yes - No
j. minimum 25 years - Yes - No
k. minimum 30 years - Yes - No
l. minimum 33 years - Yes - No
m. minimum 35 years - Yes - No
#7. How long should a legally arrived, non-working, never worked in America, elderly
immigrant have to wait before they start collecting social security?
a. Six months
b. One year
c. Two years
d. Five years
e. never
#8. Presently the pharmaceutical companies that make “vaccines” are immune from liability.
QUESTION: should the makers of “vaccines” be immune from product safety liability?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Undecided
Shoot the Zionazis First.