Judge
Napolitano Makes Case: Liberty in Jeopardy
Speech highlights egregious
legislative and judicial attacks on freedom
By
Michael Curran
I
Heard the People Say -- a conservative non-profit organization -- hosted its
first fundraiser luncheon at the Frontenac Hilton, in
Frontenac, MO on Thursday, July 16th. The midday affair from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30
p.m. commenced with hors d’oeuvres during a book signing by the keynote speaker,
Judge Andrew Napolitano (The Judge) who is the Senior Judicial Analyst for FOX
News. Jamie Allman of 97.1 Talk Radio, who served as master
of ceremonies, introduced Judge Napolitano to a gathering which nearly filled
the Ambassadeur rooms of the Hilton. Attendees heard an erudite speech commencing
with Sir Thomas More traversing across the Stamp
Act of 1765 to the Patriot Act of 2001 and culminating with
an appropriate juxtapose of Thomas Jefferson’s last words.
The Judge signed books for those purchasing
his latest release, Dred Scott’s Revenge and privately met with
numerous VIP attendees whose donations above the $75 ticket price -- used to
benefit not only I Heard The People Say, but The Heritage Foundation, the ACLJ,
and Veterans Circle -- merited the separate half hour meeting.
After the book signing, Judge Napolitano listened
as Jamie Allman concluded his introduction with,
“. . . and finally, a judge we want to hear from!” An appropriate 
introduction
for a libertarian/conservative message we will review in part under four divisions
garnered from the speech.
Philosophy in History and Context
“Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat…
But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round,
will the King’s command flatten it? … NO.”
Judge Napolitano referred to the play A
Man for All Seasons, by Robert Bolt which depicted protagonist Sir Thomas More’s attempt to persuade the jury at his trial for high
treason that all governments have limitations.
Granted, history does not reveal Sir Thomas More -- a Catholic, lawyer,
scholar, and statesman -- used such a defense at his treason trial. History does however reveal his refusal to
sign the 1534 Act of Supremacy. In the original text of Henry VIII’s decree, the act acknowledges but does not confer
that the English crown shall enjoy “all honors, dignities, pre-eminences,
jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to
the said dignity.”
Thus, the statute Thomas More was accused of
violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful authority to enact. Sir Thomas, according to the fictitious
account, therefore appealed to the natural law as well as to the common sense
of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of nature. “There is but one law for all, namely, that
law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity,
justice, equity -- the law of nature and of nations. This is the Natural Law that penetrates man’s
being and which the Founding Fathers adopted as the principle around which
civilized American society would be organized.
The Declaration
of Independence appeals to ‘the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’” (1.)
As we know, Thomas fared no better than
those who today argue that Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and
constitutional limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide by
them. For example, the Judge argued, in
the unread details of the Patriot Act of
2001 Congress signed, law enforcement’s sweeping surveillance capabilities
of ‘financial institutions’ are carefully articulated.
It is in this context the round/flat Earth
metaphor is appropriate: does merely calling something a ‘financial institution’
make it a ‘financial institution’ because The
Patriot Act declares such in order to increase the targets of broad
surveillance powers?
Legislation in History and Context
The Judge next stated, “When we were
colonists, and the King and the Parliament needed money from us . . . they
devised ingenious ways to tax us. One of
them was called the Stamp Act. Parliament decreed that every piece of paper
that the Colonists had in their homes; every book, every document, every deed,
every lease, every pamphlet, every poster to be nailed to a tree, had to have
the King’s stamp on it. You think going to a Post Office is bad?”
Logically, how would the King know that his stamp
was on every piece of paper in your home? Parliament enacted legislation
called the Writs of Assistance Act
which let the king’s soldiers write their own search warrants -- parallel to
rights of surveillance granted to law enforcement under the Patriot Act -- and bang down any door
they chose to look for the stamps or anything else they might be looking for.
“We fought a revolution because British
soldiers could knock on our doors and demand that we house them, and demand
that we turn over property to them because they could write their own search
warrants. In the Patriot Act,
the most hateful piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts, a Republican congress and a Republican
president authorized federal agents to do the unthinkable -- to write their own
search warrants. And the Republican
administration didn’t even let members of the House of Representatives read the
Patriot Act before they voted on it,”
the Judge proclaimed with disdain. As
the Judge stated, “It [Writs of Assistance
Act] was the last straw for the colonists.”
And the rest as we know is history.
It should be the last straw for present day Americans, too.
But let us place the Stamp Act in context to extract another relevant argument. Then, The
Seven Years War of Europe, French and
Indian War of North America ended with a price and profit -- the American
Colonies benefited from the shift of French dominance in North America to Great
Britain -- with the price of freedom financed by taxes imposed upon the
Colonies via the Stamp Act. After all, as some would say, “time for the
Colonists to buck up, have skin in the game for your privileges.”
And therein lay the contrast: an argument
for taxes to finance the Colonist’s share of the King’s military presence ‘round
the world’ was met with the aspiration to go it alone, not that a defense is
unnecessary (i.e., the Second Amendment). These days, taxes are sought and imposed for
every conceivable endeavor with National Defense a peculiar ‘hawkish’
exception. The new government-owned
Dodge has it right: “The rules have changed.”
Sadly.
We need only consider the premise President
Obama argues from concerning his clarion call for government’s
chief responsibility to the citizenry: National Healthcare in-
lieu
of National Defense. “When Barack Obama talks about healthcare
reform, it seems all the news is good news . . . It will improve the quality
and efficiency of the care we get . . . It will restore American competitiveness
by lowering the cost of care . . . But, Obama hasn’t
explained how he’s going to cover 47 million more people and reduce the cost
of health care at the same time.” (2.) Notice importantly, the discussion is
on how/whether it will work and not -- properly it seems -- whether it is
the federal government’s role at all!
Freedom in Context and Crisis
Restating how the Colonists fought and won
the war for independence and wrote the Constitution,
the Judge then reminded everyone the Constitution
doesn’t grant power, it keeps the government off our backs.
“Jefferson argued, though he wasn’t
physically there in Philly, as he did in the Declaration of Independence that our rights are ours by virtue of
our humanity. That as God is perfectly free, and since we are created in His
image and likeness, we too are perfectly free. The big government crowd --
yes they had them even in those days, too -- argued that you can’t have freedom
without government, and that government gives us our rights, and therefore,
that government can take them away. This
is not an academic argument. Jefferson
and the natural law argument prevailed because the Constitution was written to keep the government from interfering
with our natural rights,” the Judge stated to a round of applause.
I
Heard the People Say founders Annette R. Read and Margaret J. Walker
concurred, “We believe that some of the
freedoms most in jeopardy in America are within the First Amendment
-- things like free speech, choice of religion and the right to assemble. As our government becomes more and more
intrusive, our organization is working even harder to protect Americans’ right
to exercise these freedoms.”
The question naturally arises in the current climate: are we
increasing or decreasing in our right to think as we wish,
to say what we think, to publish what we say, to travel where we want, to
worship as we see fit, and to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves against
tyranny? And, finally, are we increasing or decreasing in our right to be
left alone? Or, are we ever on the
lookout for new forms of tyranny to quell?
As Glenn Beck aptly states, it is in the land of the free not the land
of those dominated by tyrannical government which has brought us our current
way of life: “America’s promise of freedom allowed the lone entrepreneur to
bring the world the light bulb, car, telephone, movie . . . polio vaccine,
microwave oven, copy machine, fiber optics, and cotton candy.” (3.)
Duty to Speak, Act and Nullify!
In closing, Judge
Napolitano reminded everyone that no one holds Jefferson a saint but most argue
he was one of America’s greatest presidents. For Jefferson believed that
the individual was greater than the State and that States were greater than the
Federal government. Such is a construct forgotten and consequently seldom
enforced. But the Judge seeks to see
that truth restored.
Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke
questioned the Judge on State’s Rights to nullify laws imposed by Congress in
violation of the Tenth Amendment as
one means of restoring the ‘States Rights’ concept. The Judge concurred that it may be one means
of remedy for a runaway Congress which continues to expand its legislative role
far beyond Constitutional limits.
In his final two remarks, the Judge assessed
the present president and his predecessor when they declare, “My first job is
to keep you safe.” “He is wrong!
His first job is to keep us free. It is his only job -- to keep us free,”
Judge Napolitano declared. And this lead
to Jefferson’s lament shortly before his death who felt that in his view of the
world that is was in the natural order of things for government to grow and
freedom to be diminished; how ardently he wished such wouldn’t happen. And in order to prevent it from happening he
had a very simple remedy, “When the people fear the government that is tyranny;
when the government fears the people, that is liberty!”
“We
hope that guests at the event were encouraged by the Judge’s message, and agree
that the only path to righting the government’s role back to the ideals of our
Founding Fathers is through education and grassroots efforts, like I Heard The People Say.
We believe that organized action by conservatives will only be productive if we
are educated about the candidates, the issues, and the history of our nation,”
Annette and Margaret stated as their enduring aim.
Anyone seeking more information
regarding I Heard The
People Say is encouraged to visit their website: www.iheardthepeoplesay.org;
e-mail them at annette@iheardthepeoplesay.org; call (314) 473-5340; or write to
I Heard The People Say, PO Box 6526,
Chesterfield, MO 63006.
Thoughts and Considerations
As Judge
Napolitano correctly conveyed, adherence to The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God
will not allow for consistent political party affiliation and support. His convictions place the Judge at odds with
President Bush (Republicans) and Obama (Democrats)
equally on particular points. So too
should it be for Christians. These final
thoughts and considerations stem from the Judge’s speech and merit far greater
thought and consideration.
To say freedom is in crisis presumes a
shared definition of freedom. As we
know, liberal Democrats argue freedom includes national healthcare;
Libertarians and Republicans argue free-market capitalism will provide
healthcare for those choosing participation.
What authoritative source -- each say the Constitution addresses their perspective -- can speak to the
dilemma of what encapsulates the concept of freedom comprehensively and clearly
in the current climate of contemporary western society?
Richard Bauckham
points us in the right direction: “God is undoubtedly implicated in the
contemporary crisis of freedom. In the
present cultural climate, belief in God -- or at least, in a God to any extent
resembling the Christian God -- seems to many
incompatible with human autonomy. The
modern process of emancipation of life from traditional authorities has also
been a process of liberation from God.
Can we think and speak about the authority of God in such a way as to
affirm human freedom, as given and nurtured by God?” (4.)
A resounding “yes” is the response from all
those following Christ for He says, “For
if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:36).
Indeed, the God of Nature clearly reveals His
divine power, glory, handiwork (Psalm 139)
and that morality to which all men know (Romans
1-2) and that role government is to fulfill within society (Romans 12), such that all men everywhere
(including Congress!) are without excuse.
Further, that role of historical fiction
regarding Sir Thomas More in the Judge’s argument just might be depicted
beautifully by the character Isabel (de Clare) Marshal in Baker’s excellent
historical fiction (5.) tale based on the true life, unsung heroes of Magna Carta
and soon repeated in kind with the real life accomplishments and contributions
of Annette Read and Margaret Walker.
Time will tell.
Finally, political needs and aspirations as
we perceive necessary, Christians will do well to stay steadfast to those Truths
contained in Scripture first which may pit them against Republicans, Democrats,
president’s, kings, and tyrants. Sadly
we recall, vast numbers of deceived German Christians so loved their country
they blindly found themselves following Hitler. We, as followers of Christ,
must be faithful to Him alone who offers true freedom. Political freedoms aside, the freedom
Christians espouse is far more than the blessed temporal freedoms of western
liberal democracy. If that is not true,
then Christ’s words as John records are false and that freedom we Christians
are called to proclaim can be discovered within nature and without Christian
witness.
“If what Christians believe about God and
the world could be known without witnesses, then we would have evidence that
what Christians believe about God and the world is not true. . . If we and the
world existed by necessity, then no witness, no story of creation would be
required; yet we have it on good authority that God has created and
redeemed. Creation and redemption
constitute the story necessary for us to know what we are. Such knowledge comes only
through the telling of this story” (6.)
Let the sound of that freedom ring and be
boldly proclaimed by faithful Christian witness!
Sources and Recommended Reading
(1.) Liberty
and Tyranny, pg. 25. Levin,
M. R. (2009), New York: Threshold Editions.
(2.) Catastrophe, pg. 101. D. Morris &
McGann, D. M. (2009), New York: Harper.
(3.) Common
Sense, pg. 103. Beck, G.
(2009). New York: Mercury Radio Arts/Threshold Editions.
(4.) God
and The Crisis of Freedom. pg. 3. Bauckham, R. (2002), Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press.
(5.) Swords
of Heaven. Baker, C. D. (2006). Mill Hall: Preston Speed Publications.
(6.)
With the Grain of the Universe: The Church’s Witness and Natural Theology
, pg. 207. Hauerwas, S. (2001), Grand Rapids: Brazos Press.
Michael Curran, M. Litt.
St. Andrews, Scotland. Michael and
Mary and their five children Shannon, Ryan, Rebekah,
Rachel and Brendan live in St. Louis. He
has lived and served as pastor in South Africa, preached the gospel in numerous
countries – Austria, Botswana, England, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, Kenya, Zimbabwe
-- and smuggled Bibles into the previous communist block countries of Eastern
Europe. Michael can be contacted via email at mc454@alumni.st-andrews.ac.uk.
