Andrew Napolitano: Federal Judge Finally Acknowledges NSA is “Almost Orwellian” – Hit & Run : Reason.com
Send to Kindle
Andrew Napolitano: Federal Judge Finally Acknowledges NSA is \”Almost Orwellian\”
Dec. 19, 2013 7:00 am
Big GuvBig Guv\”Almost Orwellian\”—that\’s the description a federal judge gave earlier this week to the massive spying by the National Security Agency (NSA) on virtually all 380 million cellphones in the United States.
Andrew Napolitano explains why this is the first meaningful and jurisdictionally grounded judicial review of the NSA cellphone spying program.
Judge Andrew Napolitano’s 3min 23s Econ Biscuit, for Mises.org: “Debt Destroys!” America is still paying back Wilson’s WWI Debt! | Peace . Gold . Liberty
Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Wed, 10/23/2013 – 16:10
The Mises View: \”Government Debt Addiction\” | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
During Mises University in July, Judge Napolitano taught what David Gordon described as a “conference within the conference” and “a masterful survey of how the Supreme Court has interpreted the commerce clause, from Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) to the present.”
This summer, the Mises Institute spoke briefly with Judge Napolitano about the Constitution and the American political system.
|Judge Napolitano: Connecticut Gun Control Law “A Wishlist For …
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: I think it is a serious interference with the individual right to keep and bear arms, and Connecticut is a unique situation.
|Judge Andrew P. Napolitano: When the Government Goes Bankrupt
Jewish World Review Apr. 4, 2013/ 24 Nissan, 5773. When the Government Goes Bankrupt. By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano …
Recently by Andrew P. Napolitano: The Right to Self-Defense
What if the dictator just made up the rules according to his own personal taste?
What if the product he regulated was lawful, sold nearly everywhere and consumed by nearly everyone?
What if that product came in flavors and degrees of sweetness the dictator didn’t like?
What if that product was part of a huge national market that provides choices to consumers and jobs for those who want them? What if that product was simple soda pop?
Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedoms: New Book by Andrew P. Napolitano
The Beginning of the End of American Liberty: New Book From Judge Andrew P. Napolitano Reveals How Two U.S. Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedoms and Paved the Way for Today’s Assault on Liberty
Release date: November 16, 2012 – They are two of America’s most celebrated presidents. One, a Republican who had a storied military career, created the American conservation movement and once gave a speech after being shot by a would-be assassin; the other, a Democrat who overcame dyslexia as a child only to lead America to victory in World War I and formulate the idea of an international body of nations dedicated to the preservation of peace.
These are the tales all American schoolchildren are taught about Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. However, they are also a whitewashed view of two U.S. presidents who, more than any other, set the United States on a path of expansionist government that has given us anti-liberty policies like Obamacare.
Andrew P. Napolitano: Archives
The Government’s Plans for You
Andrew Napolitano talks to Lew about the tools of tyranny.
…..We know from the events 2,000 years ago, which Christians commemorate and celebrate this week, that freedom is the essential means to discover and unite with the truth. And to Christians, the personification, the incarnation, the perfect manifestation of truth is the Son of God.
On the first Holy Thursday, Jesus attended a traditional Jewish Passover Seder. Catholics believe that at that last supper, He performed two miracles so that we could stay united to Him. He transformed ordinary bread and wine into His own body, blood, soul and divinity, and He empowered His disciples and their successors to do the same.
What If Patriotism Means Abolishing the Government?
Andrew Napolitano on neo-America.
What if the Constitution No Longer Applied?
Recently by Andrew P. Napolitano: Congress and Secrecy
What if the whole purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government? What if Congress’ enumerated powers in the Constitution no longer limited Congress, but were actually used as justification to extend Congress’ authority over every realm of human life? What if the president, meant to be an equal to Congress, has become a democratically elected, term-limited monarch? What if the president assumed everything he did was legal, just because he’s the president? What if he could interrupt your regularly scheduled radio and TV programming for a special message from him? What if he could declare war on his own? What if he could read your emails and texts without a search warrant? What if he could kill you without warning?
Our representatives in the House and in the Senate have made a mockery of our Constitution. The secret supercommittee – around which have swirled all sorts of rumors about raising taxes and increasing regulations – has effectively become the Congress. Once it reports whatever it has agreed to, Congress cannot debate that report. Congress cannot publicly discuss that report. Congress cannot amend that report. Congress can only vote that report up or down. This modern-day Privy Council has robbed you of your representation in government and the transparency guaranteed by the Constitution.
What can we do about this? We can continue to challenge the government, and we can throw out of office any member of Congress who favors secrecy over freedom. Read more…
Yet these wars are the same policies that allow for the centralization of power in the federal government on the domestic front. There wouldn’t have been an Obamacare if there had never been a Patriot Act; because, when you allow your freedoms to be trampled conditionally under the pretext of safety, then even those freedoms you’d never dream of giving away become endangered.
Lord Acton‘s famous saying is often misquoted as “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Either quote applies to the power of the United States, says Judge Andrew P. Napolitano in his 2010 book “Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History” (Thomas Nelson, 368 pages, notes, index) which I found while dropping off a bunch of my review copies at our local library. I can think of no better good deed than to help a public library in times of need — and they’re always in times of need!
What convinced me to check out the good Judge’s book was the book’s foreward by Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, who’s my congressman (Texas 14) and the guy I voted for in 1988 for President when he ran on the Libertarian Party ticket. I’ve voted for him twice in his re-election bid, in 2008 and 2010. I met Paul at a function in Calhoun County, Texas, where I live, and he autographed my copy of his book “End the Fed”. (for my review: http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/columns/090916-kinchen-columnsbookreview.html).
Like Paul, Napolitano hates the Fed and devotes “Lie #8 “The Federal Reserve Shall Be Controlled by Congress” to a discussion — and dissection — of the Fed. For one thing, it’s a private organization of banks and bankers and there’s nothing “Federal” about it. It also has no “Reserve” and is backed by neither gold nor silver. I call it the “Creature from Jekyll Island,” the offshore Georgia island where a band of bankers and political leaders met in secret in 1910 to come up with the idea for a backdoor central bank.
…Historians have speculated that Jefferson originally planned to use the concept of property ownership in that iconic litany of human rights, but he feared that addressing slavery in the same document in which he had characterized the long train of abuses visited upon the colonists by the king of England would have opened the Declaration and its signers to charges of hypocrisy.
Nevertheless, Talmudic and Christian scholars, and renowned skeptics, even atheists and deists, had long held, by Jefferson’s time, that the divine right of kings was a myth, that all humans own their own bodies, and that personal freedoms are integral to those bodies. Whether the ultimate source of human freedom is found in theology or biology, freedom exists, freedom is ours by nature, and the long history of the world is really one unceasing, increasing catalogue of the epic battles for personal freedoms against government tyranny…
Where Do Our Rights Come From?
After a trip to the American Midwest in 1959, Nikita Khrushchev, then the ruler of the Soviet Union, became convinced that corn could solve many of the USSR’s economic woes. Russia had long struggled with miserably inadequate food supplies, the result of years of inept Communist agricultural policies. Having witnessed the wild success of corn production in America, Khrushchev reasoned that the grain could be equally successful in Russia, and thus support increased meat and dairy production necessary to feed the population. He therefore commanded that vast swaths of land, including the frigid tundra of Siberia, be converted to corn crops. As it turned out, corn was entirely unsuitable to the Russian climate, and the plan was a complete disaster.
The reason, of course, that the policy failed was Khrushchev’s ignorance of the immutable fact – the self-evident truth – that corn can only be grown under certain conditions, and Russia’s climate did not provide them. The cost of this misjudgment was wasted resources and prolonged hunger. It is obvious that politicians must enact laws which are in accord with such “truths.” If they do not, then the inevitable consequence is human suffering. There are some things which humans and their constructed governments simply cannot change; that is to say, those things transcend our human capacities and cannot be the object of our will. Individuals and governments are thus always secondary and subject to these truths.
What are these truths, but “natural laws”? What other laws are there, with which human commands must accord? As we shall see, there are natural rights every human possesses by virtue of being human which protect our essential “yearnings” from government interference. And as we shall also see, manmade laws are only valid to the extent that they comport with and are subject to these natural rights. This is all known as the Natural Law.
This scheme is in contrast to the legal philosophy of…………..