Changes

=== Placement in political spectrum ===

=== Placement in political spectrum ===

Andrew Napolitano cannot, strictly speaking, be called a [[conservative]]. Rather, he is a [[libertarian]]. His primary concern is not with any particular public-policy ''result'' but rather with the maintenance of a ''process'' that emphasizes individual liberty above all else. He objects in principle to [[capital puunishment]] for any offense, no matter how heinous, on the theory that Natural Law does not authorize the State to take life, except in the immediate defense of its citizens when the aggressor is not subject to any gentler means of restraint. Furthermore, he stands against any form of [[prohibition]], whether of [[alcoholic drink]]s or of any sort of pharmaceutical agent, recreational or otherwise. Whether his objections are primarily principled or flow from his observation that laws that "control" any substance must inevitably compromise the procedural protections of the individual against the state in their enforcement (an insight he gained after eight years on the bench), he has never explicitly clarified.

Andrew Napolitano cannot, strictly speaking, be called a [[conservative]]. Rather, he is a [[libertarian]]. His primary concern is not with any particular public-policy ''result'' but rather with the maintenance of a ''process'' that emphasizes individual liberty above all else. He objects in principle to [[capital punishment]] for any offense, no matter how heinous, on the theory that Natural Law does not authorize the State to take life, except in the immediate defense of its citizens when the aggressor is not subject to any gentler means of restraint. Furthermore, he stands against any form of [[prohibition]], whether of [[alcoholic drink]]s or of any sort of pharmaceutical agent, recreational or otherwise. Whether his objections are primarily principled or flow from his observation that laws that "control" any substance must inevitably compromise the procedural protections of the individual against the state in their enforcement (an insight he gained after eight years on the bench), he has never explicitly clarified.

That said, he is a consistent defender of the basic right of an individual to keep and bear arms, as stated in the [[Second Amendment]]. He is opposed to all forms of what is commonly called "regulation" today, whether of commerce or of personal activity. He interprets the Constitution's directive to [[United States Congress|Congress]] to "regulate interstate commerce" in what he asserts is the intended meaning: ''to make such commerce more regular'' by setting uniform standards to which all States must adhere.

That said, he is a consistent defender of the basic right of an individual to keep and bear arms, as stated in the [[Second Amendment]]. He is opposed to all forms of what is commonly called "regulation" today, whether of commerce or of personal activity. He interprets the Constitution's directive to [[United States Congress|Congress]] to "regulate interstate commerce" in what he asserts is the intended meaning: ''to make such commerce more regular'' by setting uniform standards to which all States must adhere.