Analysis of the US Constitution

[Sukerkin]

I have yet to watch this all the way through (it is a bit of a time investment) but I would be very interested in hearing what the views of my American friends here are on what he has to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s&feature=share&list=PL8A1521C99D6ED8CE

 

[DennisBreene]

After watching 10 of the approximately 47 segments of Michael Bodnarick's (sp.?) lectures on the US constitution I had to look him up on Google. He is passionate and opinionated and clearly Libertarian. I have similar political leanings, so I find much of what he has to say attractive. But, to be balanced, his lectures are in the nature of an avocational study of the constitution. And even he takes pains to be clear that if one acts to assert one's perceived rights, be prepared to fight the full force of the government in the attempt. I think it can be the basis for an interesting discussion of such issues as the derivation of individual rights, the role of government and the duties and responsibilities of a free people. I wouldn't use this as a substitute for a course on constitutional law if you are currently in law school however.

 

[Makalakumu]

He ran for president in 2004. Imagine what today would look like if he had won?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarick and Green Party candidate David Cobb in 04 were arrested trying to gain access to the infomercial we call a debate. As a legitimate candidate with the chance to actually win (as opposed to me who had 0 ballot listings then) he should have been allowed in. I supported his candidacy in 04, have watched his class repeatedly, and have an autographed copy of his book "Good to be King" which goes along with it. These classes have been listed in The Study as a resource for years, and I highly recommend them to anyone who wants a clear view of what a limited non-interpretive view of the US Constitution look like.

:asian:

 

[Rumy73]

Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarick and Green Party candidate David Cobb in 04 were arrested trying to gain access to the infomercial we call a debate. As a legitimate candidate with the chance to actually win (as opposed to me who had 0 ballot listings then) he should have been allowed in. I supported his candidacy in 04, have watched his class repeatedly, and have an autographed copy of his book "Good to be King" which goes along with it. These classes have been listed in The Study as a resource for years, and I highly recommend them to anyone who wants a clear view of what a limited non-interpretive view of the US Constitution look like.

:asian:

I thoroughly dislike how the media excludes third party players, typically speaking. As we know Ross Perot made a big splash, but his ilk is a major exception. Call me a liberal or whatnot, but as a former journalist in Ohio, I moderated and covered statehouse elections. To the chagrin of many, I invited independents and third parties to the debate. I even wrote stories on third parties, including pieces during the presidential election on Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. My chief editor (of a moderately conservative newspaper) asked me if I was concerned about "confusing voters." I did this, because I believed in the process. Frankly, I think much of the libertarian platform is bunk and has much im common with marxism in that it sounds great on paper. However, widening the political discourse is important. The libertarian stance on drugs, I believe, has helped open the door to marijuana legalization. I am not a fan of it, but the war on drugs is a wasteful policy.