What are Badnarik's qualifications as concerns law? None. He makes the same mistakes as the typical "Libertarian" idiotologue: he fails to distinguish between law, on one hand, and on the other, politics -- thus he substitutes his preferred fantasy for the actual history of the country, and the Constitution.

Very simple premise: "We the people" ARE the gov't; therefore, anyone who preaches against gov't is preaching against "We the people". At best it is a cowardly abandonment of one's duties as a citizen in a democracy. Wake up, Badnarik: like doesn't consist only of freedom -- yours -- and everyone else bearing all the responsibility.

Our system of laws is not based upon the lawless nonsense that the individual is "above society" -- society being s skein of laws. IT is based upon a balancing of interests: my right to not have my rights infringed means you have the responsibility to not infringe them. And vice versa. No, "Libertarians": freedom is NOT unlimited: it is limited both by our finitude and imperfection, and the fact that we live in a society with others who have rights -- and responsibilities which are the equal of ours.

What are Badnarik's qualifications to tell everyone else what the "law" is? None: his is the fundamental, typical idiotological appeal to false authority fallacy. Ours is a society of laws -- not of ideologues/men.
_____

Addendum:

Reviewer: LetFreedomRing - - September 13, 2008
Subject: We Need to Study Our History & Constitution
_____

We need to learn the difference between believing the weird simply because weird, and learning not to be gullible to every crackpottery that crawls out of the anti-Constitutional lunatic fringe.
_____

I thank Mr. Badnarik for his effort. I think anyone that thinks Mr. Badnarik is extreme in his views should refer to the precursor to the Declaration of Independence - the Virginia Declaration of Rights by George Mason.
_____

The Constitution trumps the VA Declaration. And the VA Declaration doesn't apply outside VA.

You'd know that if (1) you'd read the Constitution, and (2) knew the meaning of the words "supreme" and "Law".
_____

Mason does not get air time in Classrooms because he, like Jefferson, was not a big government Federalists/Imperialist/Conservative. He was a true Classical Liberal.
_____

You haven't a clue. For one, Jefferson owned slaves, so had time to sit around and read and wirte down his abstract speculations. He also wrote this in the "Declaration" -- which was a declaration of independence from BRITAIN ONLY -- in the list of complaints against King George III:

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."

So Jefferson opposed the crackpottery which falsely cites him as supportive of their anti-gov't lunacies. Moreover, as were all the Founders, Jefferson was PRO-gov't: we call them "Founders" because they FOUNDED gov't.

And the phrase "big gov't" has neither meaning nor legitimacy: read "The Federalist," and you'll repeatedly encounter the express assertion that the INTENT was to create a POWERFUL, CENTRAL gov't.

And who lost the argument when the COnstitution was ratified? The anti-Federalists -- today's racist "states' rights" anti-Constitutionalists. That means the that anti-Federalist and their views have no legal weight.
_____

Of course a 'liberal' today is a Neo Marxist.
_____

Of course you don't know what you're talking about, being limited as you are to (1) gullibility, and (2) slinging labels about which you know nothing accurate, and none of which is substitute for actual knowledge. Clue: the framers incorporated taxation in the Constitution.
_____

More and more Americans should consult this document. Especially the person not far below this comment, that condemns this talk.
_____

I have an education in law, and my special focus of research and study is the evolution of legal history into Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your "specialty" is to seek alternatives to making the efort to know what you're talking about. I'm sure Bandarik is living comfortably off the profits made from exploiting your ignorance and gullibility.

As concerns the crackpottery he preaches: I was introducted to it, and studied it, alongside getting an education in law. That crackpottery is pseudo-law from law-illiterates who never explain how they know law better than those who have an education in law as result of the fact that DON'T have such education.

You're intellectual laziness -- looking for the easy way around personal and social reesponsibility -- is indefensible. As Bandarik's misleading of the gullible is irresponsible and reprehensible. Every freedom is inextricably entwined with responsibility; that includes the right of free speech.
_____

And then this unfounded elitist nonsense, from an individual who speaks strictly to the personal, when the issue is objective history, fact, and law:

"Maybe you should “wake up,” JNagarya; this is a republic not a democracy . . . ."

The essence of democracy is elections. The Constitution stipulates that there shall be elections.

Ours is a democratic republic. As for grabbing onto Jefferson as a favorite anti-gum'mint source: Jefferson himself said, that in order that our DEMOCRACY survive, the citizenry must be educated.

And he meant educated in fact, not anti-gum'mint crackpottery which is directly contradicted by the Constitution individuals such as you haven't yet read the first time.

COCK!!!!! I really do! Also, I've never found a pink shirt I didn't like! Go Blue Biatch!

I thank Mr. Badnarik for his effort. I think anyone that thinks Mr. Badnarik is extreme in his views should refer to the precursor to the Declaration of Independence - the Virginia Declaration of Rights by George Mason. Mason does not get air time in Classrooms because he, like Jefferson, was not a big government Federalists/Imperialist/Conservative. He was a true Classical Liberal. Of course a 'liberal' today is a Neo Marxist. More and more Americans should consult this document. Especially the person not far below this comment, that condemns this talk.

First of all, this is a Great Course which is intended to be no more than an introduction. The historical details that are usually expected have been referenced, but minimally discussed. The purpose of this class is to provide an “insight” into the Constitution in matters of reference and model with plenty of details and anecdotes. (In other words, the Constitution is being taught as a dynamic document, not just a piece of parchment with words that mean nothing until an indictment occurs.) This is not a history class. The intention is for the student to learn what the Constitution is and how it applies to every American citizen, as well as how it can be applied in everyone’s daily life. Michael Badnarik suggests for everyone to continue to learn and study the facts and history of the Constitution enthusiastically. No one will be disappointed!

In comment to JNagarya, what in the hell are you rambling about? Do you have any clue as to what you are saying? If you are so wise, then why do you have so many misspellings and grammatical errors? (Just reading your comment is an eyesore in itself!) Also, why would you care about qualifications? I have a piece of paper that says I'm a Doctor. Does that qualify me to perform surgery on your brain? Are you qualified to judge other people? Do you even know Michael Badnarik personally to make such a judgment call about his qualifications, let alone question his motives or background? (Michael does state that he has at least 18 years of research, whether or not you believe him.) So if you do not like his class, then just state your opinion of the class and ask Michael directly about his qualifications (to determine genuineness) without your personal and prejudiced characterization. Then explain with (true) facts as to why he may be wrong. You see, it is people like you who cause dissent in the American public by thwarting a positive objective with personal inquiries only to prove… that someone is smarter than you, perhaps? Maybe you should “wake up,” JNagarya; this is a republic not a democracy regardless of what you may have heard on the television. (See Constitution Article IV, Section 4, First Sentence.) Plus, “We the People” are not the government. “We the People” appoint the government through a process called election. (Have you ever read and tried to understand our Constitution?) All that I ask of you is one thing (as a favor to those individuals inquiring of this class); please apologize for your reckless generalization and your thoughtless discouragement to everyone who happens upon reading your blog and also to Michael. Within your apology, consider an implication that you really did not mean the things that you wrote because you have proven that your Constitutional knowledge is obviously deficient and that you apparently have not paid much attention to this valuable class. Thanks!