No they are not, and DiLorenzo is Kool-Aid Central for pro-Confederate propaganda lies.
But first of all, Napolitano himself is a good and decent man, who is right in most everything he says -- most everything.
In that regard, we might note the following quote from your link:
"So what can be done?
Among Judge Napolitano's common sense recommendations are abolition of the income tax ("the Sixteenth Amendment . . . should be abolished outright"); same for the Seventeenth Amendment which called for the direct election of U.S. senators and a return to the system of appointing them by state legislatures; and the recognition that the federal government will never check its own power." 'Thus, I would clarify the right of the states to secede from the Union,' writes the judge from New Jersey, 'losing all the benefits that come from membership [in the union], but regaining all the freedom membership has taken away.' "
Imho, those are entirely sensible recommendations, necessary to restore the balance between Federal and State powers.
And a constitutional amendment to define lawful secession seems to me long overdue.
But we should also note that none of this has anything to do with Honest Abe Lincoln -- since the 16th and 17th amendments came 50 years after Lincoln's death.
Second important point to note: from the beginning, my argument here can be summarized as: "Founders' Original Intent" -- what did those Federalists who wrote and ratified the new Constitution intend for it to mean?
I say: if you oppose Original Intent, then you oppose the Constitution itself.
Well, the good Judge Napolitano argues, in effect, against the Founders' Original Intent, saying the document was flawed from the beginning in allowing the Founders to increase Federal power beyond what anti-Federalists approved of.
I say that's nonsense: the Constitution means what the Founders said it means, not what anti-Federalists wish it would have meant if they had written or voted to ratify it.
And bringing this all back to our discussion of Deep-South slave-holders declarations of secession, beginning in 1860, the Founders' Original Intent on secession is clear: constitutional secession is by mutual consent, or due to a material breach of contract having that same effect.
None of these conditions existed on November 6, 1860, when Deep-South slave-holders first began the process to declare their secession, simultaneously began committing many acts of increasing rebellion or war against the United States, before formally declaring war on May 6, 1861.
And the slave-holders' declaration of war on the United States invalidates all claims to the constitutional legitimacy of their "right of secession."
The US Constitution says nothing directly about "secession".
It says a lot about people who make war on the United States, or provide them with aid and comfort, committing rebellion, insurrection, invasion and domestic violence.
Those are the constitutional provisions Lincoln used to defeat the slave-holders' rebellion.
Well, other than your personal attacks on me they were.
and DiLorenzo is Kool-Aid Central for pro-Confederate propaganda lies.
And you are Kool Aid Central for the neo-yank False Cause Losers propaganda team. Touche!
who is right in most everything he says -- most everything.
Except when he disagrees with you, perhaps?
But we should also note that none of this has anything to do with Honest Abe Lincoln
Unbelievable! Why do you continue to defend the defenseless? Historians from every spectrum are beginning to show lincoln for the tyrant that he was. Numerous examples have been hyperlinked to you but you continue to poke your head in the sand/Kool Aid jug and deny, deny, deny.
I remember a few months back when you were in complete denial about the yankee involvement in slavery but you finally capitulated under the barrage of undeniable facts presented to you. Is the lincoln myth too strong for you to let go?
I say: if you oppose Original Intent, then you oppose the Constitution itself.
Then you'll agree that lincoln was opposed to the Constitution. I think we're making progress.
Well, the good Judge Napolitano argues, in effect, against the Founders' Original Intent, saying the document was flawed from the beginning in allowing the Founders to increase Federal power beyond what anti-Federalists approved of.
First of all, the fact that amendments and a process to add amendments are part of the constitution shows that the Founders understood that they or the constitution wasn't perfect, e.g. the protection of slavery.
Second, the Constitution is only as strong as the elected and those that elect them. In the case of lincoln, the South knew that he was going to trample all over the Constitution and they seceded. In the case of 0bama, we conservatives also knew that he was going to trample all over the Constitution, however, our only recourse, thanks to lincoln, is to hope that we can have a fair and free election and replace him with a patriot.
the Founders' Original Intent on secession is clear: constitutional secession is by mutual consent
Please provide evidence of that from the Founders own words.
Your 'mutual consent' argument comes from the T v W Chase dicta. Not a shred of evidence to back it up. Zero, zilch, nada. In addition, how can you maintain that I'm free if I have to have your consent to exercise my freedom?
And the slave-holders' declaration of war
I'm gonna type this slowly so that maybe you'll get it this time: a declaration of war simple means that a state of war exists, not that you've started one. You've been shown who started the war and why. The Judge and others painted that picture quite clearly.
The US Constitution says nothing directly about "secession".
What a tick. You stated above that "constitutional secession is by mutual consent". Which is it? Does it say nothing or does it define the terms?
I'm anxious to see how you try to weasel out of this one.
It says a lot about people who make war on the United States, or provide them with aid and comfort, committing rebellion, insurrection, invasion and domestic violence.
You've show time and again that you're fast and loose with the facts and a staunch defender of the neo-yank False Cause Loser mythology. The above sentence is simply more evidence of that.
Those are the constitutional provisions Lincoln used to defeat the slave-holders' rebellion.
Actually, lincoln used unconstitutional acts to wage a slave traders invasion to collect back taxes.