the judge andrew napolitano is ahead. this new study finding that millions of americans have less money in emergency savings than what they owe to credit card companies. obviously not a good sign. the company behind candy crush hoping for an addictive ipo. dagen: shares of coke. lyman said and that -- lauren simonetti has the details. >> the dow is up by a whole three points. we just turned from red to green. up for eight days in a row. the longest winning streak for the nasdaq and the russell 2000 since july of 2013. while sales did miss estimates, we are not drinking as much soda here in the u.s. there are some cost-saving moves going forward. this is down here today by 9%. back to you guys. connell: lauren, thank you. this new survey is out from bank rate.com. it is 30-64 years old. what is leading to this? we are joined by the chief and analyst. >> we are headed in the wrong direction. we have not seen improvement in the last few years. a lot of people's income have been stagnant. for a lot of people, long-term undere

judge andrew napolitano will join us.hat does it mean moving forward for the program that the nsa still has in place? watch more foxnews.com. jon: a father in north carolina being hailed as a hero as police release a 911 call from a terrifying road rage incident, a suspect accused of running down the man and his daughter smash into their car and then following them into the parking lot and chasing them as they ran for their lives. here with the latest. >> i just spoke the father's sister who believes her brother's actions truly saved lives. the 911 calls painted chilling picture of what the father went through as he was trying to protect his teenage daughter and himself from a driver who seemed hell-bent on causing them harm. >> look, he broke my window, broke my car. i am freaking out, she is upset. they are trying to kill us. please. >> he can be heard pleading with the 911 operator to help him after his vehicle they repeatedly rammed by men identified. >> he hit me three times now. trying to figure out what his point i

andrew napolitano. no surprise there. >> no, no surprise.d the american people have caught an because the president is doing the opposite of what he was elected do he was elect faithfully to enforce the laws. when he doesn't enforce then or picks and chooses which ones to enforce or which parts of certain laws to enforce, he is actually telling people how to avoid the law so he is doing the opposite of what he has been edge gauged to do. >> so you cannot only come out with too few numbers to indicate what is really going on here, but you can pick and choose what you want to promote here, and i'm wondering -- you're the constitutional expert here -- at what point are you just revising the stipulations of the law and just completely changing it? >> well, at some point he is totally frustrating what congress has written. example. 11 million people in the united states of america who are capable of being depored to their native country. he said if you do a, b, c, d, e, i won't deport you. where did the a, b, c, d, e come from? he made it up. so

let's bring in our judicial analyst, judge andrew napolitano. mayor nagin had all the evidence stacked up against him and chose not to take a plea deal that would put him in jail for five years and now he gets this. >> guilty on 21 charges and guilty in the face of having spent two days under oath and denied the charges. the jury is telling us they believe he lied to them. i can tell you from having been there, nothing will set off a judge and a jury more than the conviction that the witness is lying to their faces. >> all that new orleans has been throu through. >> new orleans has been through a lot. new orleans had a president who sent the buses after half were dead. a government afraid of our own shadow and the mayor that was a crook at the height of the greatest crisis in the history of the city, now, this is coming back to roost. the quantum of damages will be interesting here. how much human suffering there w was, how much elicit wealth th accumulated is what the judge will look at. could get somewhere around 20 and could get anywhere from

judge andrew napolitano is here with his thoughts. a little bit of a chuckle. you know i love the laugh. the bottom line is there's no way in h-e-l-l hockey sticks this is going to make us safer, right? >> i think the tsa is basically an illusion designed to give us the appearance of safety. look, the same mentality that runs the tsa runs the rest of the government. they can't deliver the mail. they can't collect taxes. they can't tell the truth. they don't keep us safe. they haven't stopped a single terrorist from boarding a single plane in the united states of america that we know about. you know if they had they'd be boasting about it. they, they, the tsa let onboard the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber. >> here's the thing. we would now assume, as it was just starting to maybe dwindle that they were looking at our shoes more and more, now they're going to ramp it back up, right? >> i'll give them the benefit of the doubt. they have received from intelligence communities credible information that somebody out there with the present apparent ability to do

judge andrew napolitano, juan williams columnist with the hill and syndicated columnist charles krauthammerdential records act, politico first reporting, say they should have come out already, all these records. now because of all the focus and scrutiny we're likely to get a first look at some of them tomorrow, but what about this? >> well, we have a president in the white house who thinks he can change the effective dates of laws so obviously he's of the opinion that he doesn't have to release these documents, perhaps as a courtesy to former president clinton or to mrs. clinton. his only basis for not releasing them is to say executive privilege. his executive privilege, not bill clinton's and mrs. clinton, of course, didn't have executive privilege t.only belongs to the president. the longer they wait, the worse it is for her because the closer in time it now becomes when she presumably will seek the democratic nomination, and who knows what's in there. we may find out that the hillary care that she originally proposed was far worse than the obamacare we got, and that's going to pin her t

judge andrew napolitano is here. >> i guess you and i will agree on this. suggest that taxes should go up just because someone can afford to part with a little bit of cash. the government wants more money. it is just an act of law at the coloring it owns a greater portion of our income. stuart: you are very articulate. >> as understanding -- stuart: he has $20 billion worth of wealth. we do not tax wealth. >> i guess he is talking about taxing wealth. if he is talking about taxing income, all he wants to do is raise the rates above a certain adjusted growth. this is a mayor deblasio suggestion. stuart: i do not think he was. i think he is talking about taxing income. that worries me. i do not have much wealth. i have good income. i am very unwilling to part with more than half of my income as i do already. >> rightly you should. taxation is basically government legalized theft. stuart: how would you find it? >> the government was funded before the income tax. the government was funded before the income tax by assessing people who used government services. i

judge andrew napolitano is steamed and he is here. i am not making a joke about this.you quite well, serve. what is wrong with a police department and an instrument of government taking a picture of a license plate. >> the fourth amendment to the constitution puts a bar on the ability of police to commence an investigation and may have to jump over that bar. they think that there is something wrong that the person driving the car is a bad guy, they can check it out. they cannot willy-nilly check out anything that they want. they cannot commence an investigation on anybody that they want. these department of homeland security, without authorization from the congress, want to take a photograph of every license plate on every motor vehicle in the united states of america everywhere you go. that is a moral equivalent of having a federal agent in the trunk of your car. that is not the way we operate. >> the world is very different from the inside. stuart: maybe it does look different. maybe that is when you face the reality that you need this kind of tracking. >> we are on

here is judge andrew napolitano. >> this one is different.t. they believe that it is in the economic best interest not to sell it even though they will lose the sales. in the long run, it will help them to promote themselves as a healthy and health friendly place. cvs wants to market itself as the place you go to when you have a health problem. you can walk in with everything from a broken finger to a runny nose and they will treat you. would that be consistent with the clerk on the other side of the store selling tobacco products? stuart: i think it is a business decision. they will do much better with the health audience. i defend their right to make that decision. this is the ancient common law not so right of refusing to deal. unless the refusal is based on a trait like age or race or gender or sexual orientation or religious belief. cvs could, if it wanted to, they do not come in here a few smell of cigarette smoke. stuart: what about the right of a restaurant owner to say, yeah, you want to smoke in my restaurant, go right ahead. >> we

let's ask fox news senior judicial analyst, judge andrew napolitano.break this down. >> i didn't know you worked during the week. >> sometimes. >> only kidding. >> let's break this down, put the law up on the screen. you can tear it apart for us, tell us what this means. when we're going after a guy who is an american terrorist, this is what the new drone strike decision means, has to be an ongoing military target, targeting an individual that has taken up arms, there is no reasonable possibility of an arrest. we can't go and get the guy. the decision to kill is made by senior political leaders. so under that description there, can we legally go after this guy? >> the answer is no. and the reason for it is those four points that were just on the screen are not the law of the united states of america. they were written and made up by the president of the united states. they were not enacted by congress. only the congress can enact a law, especially a law giving the president authority to kill an american. >> doesn't he have war powers? >> not have war p

judge andrew napolitano. are you worried about this?f the government was doing it. the fourth amendment has the guarantees of privacy, protects us against the government, does not protect us against each other. does not protect us against private invasions of privacy. but as i understand it, and i may be weakening my understanding, but when this thing comes on, i see you in a restaurant and all of a sudden your image is in my google glass, it will send to my handheld information that you have made available to various social media outlets. it is not going to give me something that you have kept secret. it will only keep that which you have chosen to reveal two other social media outlets. the lesson here is not this is an invasion of privacy, the lesson is somebody can gathered what you can already have made public and acquire it instantaneous. they can acquire it without even typing in your name because of facial recognition software. stuart: google is harnessing facial recognition. >> which is extraordinary. stuart: absolutely. instant

earlier on "fox & friends," we spoke with our fox news senior judicial analyst, judge andrew napolitanoary. >> the fcc does say the participation of this study would be voluntary. >>> a mcdonald's employee fired for having it her way. heather shelled out $83 of her own money to pay the bill for some firefighters. and they had just been outside in the cold weather putting out a fire. when a different fire department comes in later that day, she contacted her boss and the corporate office to see if they would pay for their meals and the corporate office said no. so she and two co-workers picked up the tab. she worked there for eight years and was fired after her next shift. >> i wish that the communities would change and help each other out. i wish that things didn't have to be the way that they are and if losing my job is going to speak out to the community, then that's what it's going to do. >> her boss says she was let go for swearing at a supervisor. >>> would you fall for this? >> president roosevelt passed away this morning due to natural causes at a very old age. do you have any co

judge andrew napolitano is here. judge napolitano: it keeps coming. you don't have any privacy.vacy on the internet. judge napolitano: difficult to argue that there is an expectation of privacy but again this is not the government. you can tell google and pandora to take a hike. you can miss out on their products and probably live without their product. living with google probably would be difficult for some of us. i would think the free market would produce another google which would be respectful of this. stuart: you only have a problem when the government invade our privacy, when private enterprise -- judge napolitano: i have a problem and the law has a problem with the invasion of privacy by private entities when they don't tell us. the government may not do it whether it tells us or not. director clapper said we should have told you, then we wouldn't have the ed snowden problem. another story for another time. they are still violating the fourth amendment. in the case of a business if they tell you dear mr. and mrs. bonnie, you have signed up for x y and z we want you to kn

sounds like a story for the judge and guess who is here, judge andrew napolitano. add do anything that was inaccurate? make any claims? judge napolitano: yes and no. at the risk of getting in the weeds, this lady's insurance premiums went down but her deductible went up so total cash outlay was greater than before obamacare and was not consistent. might be a thousand dollars, tremendous medication. might be a thousand dollars one month, 3,000 in month 3, she was complaining about that. she was also complaining that this congressman voted for obamacare, something he is trying to run from now because it is immensely unpopular even in michigan where he is seeking the democratic nomination for the united states senate. so instead of producing his own campaign and to rebut what she is saying he tries to shut down the television stations that are running the one against him. of the first amendment stands for anything it is standing opposed to government censorship. a remedy for inaccurate or offensive speech or sharp speech or speech we don't like is more speech. stuart:

not sure where this is coming from the judge andrew napolitano will explain.ad have probable cause and a search warrant. judge napolitano: i will tell you how i feel, similar to the way i feel about t.a.r.p.. charles: supreme court ruling. judge napolitano: the constitution says for the police to enter private property they need a search warrant issued by ed judge or probable cause plus some sort of negligence circumstances where they don't have the time to get a search warrant. question. what happens if two people occupy the property and one says you can enter and the this is you can't? one of the exceptions to probable cause is consent. mr. varney, we stopped you for going through a red light. before you go can be search your trunk? hugh have the right to say no and you have the right to say yes. if you say yes you way of your fourth amendment right but suppose mrs. varney is in the car with you and you say yes and she says no or supposedly not on your door and she says yes and you say no. the rule is as long as there is one no you can't go in. new rule is a

judge andrew napolitano was on the show yesterday.t it. >> it is insane in this environment the government would want to target illegal immigrants. guess what, they can't. they take the picture of license plate before they run it through computer they don't know who it is registered. they're looking for needle in the haystack. photograph every license plate in the chicago of chicago to find a couple hundred who are legally present. that is not efficient and not constitutional. jenna: the department of homeland security is abruptly dropping plans for the project. the department of homeland security spokesperson the contract solicitation, proapproval, was posted, quote, without awareness of i.c.e. leadership, end quote. for now that idea is tabled. >>> ukraine not the only hot spot overseas. new violence also erupting in venezuela. a live report on the deadly clashes coming up on that next. >>> plus one powerball winning ticket, one lucky winner. who will step forward and claim $425 million? check it out. i can't believe your mom has a

fox news's senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano can weigh in.ps to use it, would it not? >> it would beeillegal for cops to use it unless they had what the law calls artic youable suspicion on the person they're using it. if they use the on connell like the tie, handsome face or hairstyle. connell: combination of all three. >> something comply men at thatry or innocuous, they couldn't. but if they had reason to suspect he was up to no good. dagen: with a hand tatoo. >> not even a hand tatoo. some reason to suspect criminal behavior they can commence an examination. connell: same way they could in old-fashioned way? >> same way they could by looking up paper records or typing into their ipads. think of this google glass as a small, minature, literrlly in your face ipad. doesn't do anymore or less than that. in terms of individuals using it on other individuals, remember the fourth amendment only protects privacy from the government, invasions of privacy from the government. doesn't protect invasions of privacy from other individuals. and is it re

joining us is fox news senior judicial analyst, judge andrew napolitano.ng? >> well, i am -- i would describe myself as fiercely pro-life, and obviously am in favor of virtually anything that prevents abortions. but this is an interesting example of the state providing a platform because the state owns the license plate -- you don't -- and limiting what you can say on the state's platform. for example, you put a bumper sticker on the bumper of your car. you can put anything you want there. choose choice, choose life. but if you're going to use something that the state is going to give you, that you are required to put on your plate, then the state has to enable you to put a contrary view on it as well. so the state, if it wants you to be able to choose these "choose life" license plates would have to give those who prefer not to choose life and not to announce that message the right to put what they want on their license plate. >> had north, had they denied the other side the chance, north carolina? >> inexplicably they did. this is a great listing here of

here to weigh in is fox news senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano.o this process, the first one is whether or not they can do it. this judge down there said yes they can. now all they've got to do is figure out how much it's going to cost. >> it's actually, for the people that worship at this church even worse because if the church and the city cannot agree on what the value of the church is, the city still gets the property and still can demolish the church, and then a judge and jury will decide later, probably after the stadium is built, what the value of the church is. i must tell you in the years that i've been studying the constitution and teaching it and lecturing on it and doing my best to explain it, i have never seen this conflict. the right to free expression of religion versus the right of the state to condemn real estate and then sell it to somebody else. the state doesn't even own this, own this stadium. because this right of free expression of religion is not only a natural right we all have, it's expressly one would think they could lo

fox news senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano. good to see you. potential for abuse by police? >> yes, it does, and i'm not happy about it, and those of us who believe the constitution means what it says shouldn't be happy about it. here's what happens. police are called to a house because of a domestic disturbance. they knock on the door and there is a man and a woman. they say can we come in? the woman says yes. the guy says no. >> yes wins. >> at that point no wins. the law before this case was if anybody says no, it's no. the guy gets in a fight with the police. the police drag him out. he's arrested. they go back to the house and they say can we come in? it's just the lady there. she says yes. even though the guy said no, he's no longer there. they go in, they find guns, evidence of drugs and these people are prosecuted. they moved to dismiss the charges because the police didn't have the right to come in. so before this case, if one said yes and one said no it was no. after this case if one says yes and one says no and the one who says noes

here to weigh in, judge andrew napolitano. >> this is a new low, steve.people that want obamacare, that believe that the government should redistribute wealth and micro manage the health care system. but here's a lady who lost her health insurance. "the washington post" called this the lie of the year, four pinocchios to the president. she gets on television and recites this and it is packaged against a democratic congressman who supported obamacare and is now trying to run away from his support for it and his lawyers threaten the television station for running the ad. that is just not permissible under the first amendment. >> this congressman gary peters, he's in the house of representatives, he wants to move over to the u.s. senate. he wants to take levin's open senate seat in michigan. that goes to show you how potent this particular ad is. during the ad where she says that obamacare jeopardized my health and congressman peters' decision to support it, that's devastating. >> it is devastating. the reason i call this a new low is he is attempting to sil

. >> andrew here with his analyst, fox news senior judicial analyst, judge andrew napolitano.is a law against it. in some places there are laws against it. as it turns act of flashing lights is protected speech. >> protected by the first amendment. this is the opinion of one federal judge in missouri. but he did a very interesting thing which i rarely heard of. he enjoined. he forebade the police from enforcing the law. normally judges will rule on the law case by case. if somebody else comes into my courtroom and is charged with flashing their lights, i'll find them not guilty. this is a federal judge who does not hear traffic cases, ruled that all these prosecutions in the state of missouri are illegal. they obviously exist in other states. in our home state there is no law -- new jersey -- there is no law prohibiting you from flashing your lights. yet, cops will stop you for it and give you a ticket. and the charge is interfering with the free flow of traffic, by warning somebody that there is a speed trap behind you. >> i'm sure many people appreciate it, not only have don

joining us is senior judicial analyst, judge andrew napolitano. let's forget about politics.it legal? >> yes and no. he has -- every president has a great deal of discretion with respect to the environment. this is congress' fault. years ago when they created the environmental protection administration in the nixon administration, congress gave the president discretion, how many parts per billion is acceptable in the air? and presidents could raise those parts to make it easier and less ex opinionsive for industry or lower those numbers. this president is using that discretion as he sees fit. here is the kicker. he's also using it in ways that the congress expressly rejected, rejected, which makes it questionable morally, but probably still legal. in other areas, like immigration where he's actually changed the law, obamacare, where 29 changes to the statute, there he's completely and totally frustrated congress' will and congress' silence is shameful. >> we ran a sound bite where he said i'm gog use this billion dollars fund. where is that coming from? >> i don't know where