Judge Napolitano strikes again!

Judge Andrew Napolitano and Harold Thomas,
March 2010

Is freedom in America a myth or a reality? Judge Andrew Napolitano asks a series of questions, which seem to answer themselves as he goes on. The style of the article does not lend itself to quoting it here, but I encourage you to read it in LewRockwell.com

Virtual buckeye to Andy Myers.

Judge Napolitano: "Secession is not an anti-American objective"

Judge Andrew Napolitano discussing secession
with Harold Thomas in Columbus, March 2010
(Photo by Jason Rink)

I just read a remarkable interview of one of my favorite people, Judge Andrew Napolitano (Fox Business Freedom Watch), by blogger Robert Ringer. This is his view of the near future:

“Well, there’s a couple ways it could go. The country could break apart into different countries. There are serious movements on the part of some [states] to secede. The notion that secession is un-American is absurd. The whole country was founded when it seceded from Great Britain, and the act of joining the Union is merely a legislative act, and any legislative act can be undone by a legislature.

“The states formed the federal government, not the other way around, and the powers they gave to the federal government they can take back. So I could see liberty-loving people flocking to different parts of the country. New Hampshire, Texas come to mind. Things go on in those states and in the government that I don’t always agree with, but they’re not as heavily regulated as, say, the People’s Republic of California or Massachusetts or New Jersey.

“We could also devolve into a revolution, where blood is actually shed over the rights of human beings. Now, it’s difficult to talk about that, but if you look at the very first act of Congress, it was the Declaration of Independence. It’s still the law of the land, and it basically says when the government takes away your rights, it is your duty to abolish the government.

“And if you can’t abolish the government by elections — because no matter who gets elected, they just keep stealing our property and our freedom — then you have to abolish the government by some other means. It’s lawful to discuss this at this time in our history. It is certainly not lawful to fire guns. But when you strike at the king, you must kill him. If you don’t, you get executed.”

The right to secession -- and if absolutely necessary, even revolution -- is guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution.

Texas v. White: Judge Napolitano's opinion

On Saturday, I commented on an article by Joseph Becker citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White (1868) as the final word that secession is unconstitutional. At the reception prior to the Young Americans for Liberty rally at the Ohio State University Mar. 8, I asked Judge Andrew Napolitano about this. This is what he told me:

[It doesn't forbid secession, but] It raises the bar very high... Texas v. White says states can secede if 37 states agree to it. This shouldn't be necessary, because each state entered the union in a legislative act [Ohio's was by its First Constitutional Convention in November 1802], and it can be reversed the same way.

"The last time, South Carolina addressed the issue of secession, the court said you can secede." Judge Napolitano's conclusion about Texas v. White: "The glass isn't half empty, it is half full."

Highlights from the Young Americans for Liberty Rally Mar. 8

I promised last week to give some highlights "when time permits". It took a week for the time to permit, but here are the memorable moments for me:

I was impressed with singer Jordan Page, who sings protest songs in a style somewhat reminiscent of those from the Vietnam era, but with a harder edge to the music. I particularly liked "The Pendulum Swings" and "The War Machine". I also noticed that he was wearing an "End the Fed" T-shirt. The young people are remarkably sophisticated about their understanding of the Federal Reserve Bank, a subject on which the vast majority of their elders are completely ignorant.

Judge Andrew Napolitano hosts an Internet-radio show each evening at 7 pm on foxnews.com. His style of interviewing is not journalistic, but asks loaded questions as a softball lead-in to the respondent's answers. Sometimes, the questions turn into speeches; but it's good for rousing the troops.

Here are quotations from Judge Napolitano's guests:

Sheriff Richard Mack (founder of OathKeepers):
"Nothing is more important than for an official to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution."
(Quoting Judge Antonin Scalia:) "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions."
"The sheriff is the last line of defense against federal tyranny… Sheriffs have no duty to obey unconstitutional laws."

Candidate Ron Hood, former state representative running for the Republican nomination in the 7th Congressional District:
"State legislators are not interested in the Tenth Amendment – they're interested in federal bribe money."

State House candidate Alicia Healy:
"People have been deceived as to what government can do for them."

Judge Napolitano:
"The greatest right, after right to life, is the right to be left alone."

Dave Grabaskas, president of the Young Americans for Liberty at Ohio State University:
"There is a two-party system: the Establisment vs. us."
(Question from Judge Napolitano: What made young people realize the need to change?")
"[The federal government] abandoning everything we hold dear, and seeing [President] Obama elected and doing the same things the Republicans did."
(Reaction from Judge Napolitano: Tell the neoconservatives and social conservatives, "Go back to the Democratic Party from where you came!")

From Ron Paul's speech:

"'Preventive war' means that we initiate the war… We just marched in, why don't we just march home?"
"The Constitution is supposed to hold the government in check, not hold the people in check!"
"When the government is bankrupt, the federal government will become irrelevant because it will be unable to bribe us."
"The Second Amendment wasn't put there for rabbit hunting."
"We've had too much bipartisanship. [It is] overwhelming when it endorses Keynesian economics." He observed that both parties support the Federal Reserve Bank and continuing the wars abroad.

On U.S. foreign policy:
"Principled non-intervention is not isolationism."
"Bring all the troops home – not just from the Middle East, but from Germany, Japan [and everywhere else]."
"The United States Government has a policy of assassinating U.S. citizens if they are deemed a threat by unknown people in the Administration – without trial or due process of law."
"Instead of giving other nations money or bombs, why don't we just give them friendship and trade? … Look at what we achieved with peace in Vietnam, compared to what we lost with war in Vietnam."

"The solution to economic problems is very simple: just get government out of the way. We don't need bailouts, just get rid of the income tax!"
"It's your life and your responsibility. You have the right to keep the fruits of your labor."
The principle of income tax: "The government owns you and lets you keep a certain percentage of your income." Rep. Paul cited Selective Service (registration for the military draft) as another example of the same principle.

"The real purpose of life is to work for virtue and excellence."

Revolution in the mosh pit

That's one way to describe the Young Americans for Liberty rally at the Newport Music Hall Monday evening. About 2,000 people attended, the great majority of them college students. The first hour featured interviews by Judge Andrew Napolitano on his FoxNews.com program Freedom Watch (videos below). The second hour was a speech by Congressman Ron Paul. It was inspiring to see both the enthusiasm of the young adults for the liberty movement, and their sophistication -- they understand why we need to End the Fed, where most of their elders are clueless.

Work and life have (and will continue to) intrude on my blogging time this week, but I do want to share the videos of Judge Napolitano's show with you. (You will need Adobe Flash Player to play the videos). When time permits, I shall share with you some highlights and comments.

Part 1, featuring Maurice Thompson at Ohio's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law:

Part 2, featuring Congressman Ron Paul:

Part 3, featuring State Senator Timothy Grendell (R-Chesterland), author of Ohio's state sovereignty resolution SCR13:

Part 4, featuring Dave Grabaskas, president of the Ohio State University Young Americans for Liberty:

Videos of Rep. Paul's speech are on The Daily Paul.

From here to freedom

Here is an article in LewRockwell.com by Congressman Ron Paul on how a strict Constitutionalist President could begin dismantling the federal government in a way that would reduce spending, balance the budget, and, over time, put an end to entitlements without throwing people out into the street.

One of the biggest problems of the liberty movement is the need to show America a vison of a future in freedom. Until we can draw that picture, we will remain vulnerable to our liberal critics.

Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano will be in Columbus for a Freedom Watch rally, to be held Monday, March 8, at the Newport Music Hall, 1722 North High Street, between 12th and 13th Avenues. Doors will open at 6:15 pm, with speeches beginning at 7 pm. The event is free and open to the public, and is sponsored by the Young Americans for Liberty at Ohio State University.

Cautionary note for Tea Parties

Sarah Palin energizes big tea party rally in Nashville.
Big mistake.

Here's why:

Sarah is urging the Republican Party to embrace the Tea Parties. Republican Chairman Michael Steele thinks that's a good idea. But does anyone really think the Tea Party movement will retain its integrity once it folds into the GOP?

From the Wall Street Journal coverage:

Organizers here seek to shift the focus from staging political rallies to winning elections. "The Tea Party movement is growing up," said Judson Phillips, a Nashville-based criminal-defense lawyer who organized the National Tea Party Convention. "If 2010 is another year of rallies, we've lost."

Rallies have value, but Mr. Phillips has a point.

Sarah Palin didn't kill Tennessee's Tea Party movement -- the movement committed suicide when it invited her. The reason it committed suicide was that the leadership apparently still clings to the notion that the federal government can be reformed -- which is the only reason to invite a national political figure (as opposed, say, to Judge Napolitano or Thomas Woods).

Federal tyranny can only be overthrown through action at the state level. There are a few politicians at the state level who can strengthen the movement, such as Georgia First Ray McBerry and the Vermont Nine; but in general, Tea Parties should be wary of establishment politicians.

This particularly goes for Ohio, where the movement takes a risk by inviting candidate for Ohio Governor John Kasich to speak. There are points of agreement, but the effect of supporting Mr. Kasich will be similar to that Nashville experienced in supporting Sarah Palin.

Back to the Wall Street Journal article:

The movement's electoral mettle will face further tests as Republican primary elections take place across the nation ahead of the November general election. At a Friday session at the convention here, activists here discussed how to coalesce around conservative candidates early in primary contests to avoid losses by splitting their votes.

"We've got to wise up to that. We need to size up candidates early and get behind them," said Bruce Donnelly, an Illinois-based businessman who created SurgeUSA, a Web site that vets primary candidates.

Attendees were urged not to spend their money traveling to Tea Party rallies in 2010, and to support political candidates instead. The message resonated with Janet Smith, a 70-year-old wife of a retired preacher, who was thinking about attending a Tea Party rally planned for September in Washington, D.C. "Maybe instead it's time to find good candidates," she said.

Correct. But Tea Partiers: don't waste your time on Congress and the Senate. If your candidates did win, they would have zero influence once they got to Washington. Concentrate on your state legislatures and Governors! Support nullification of health care, firearms regulation, and Real ID!
Support letting your states make their own decisions free of federal meddling!

The way to freedom goes through the state capitols, not the one in Washington.

Bill O'Reilly v Judge Andrew Napolitano

This exchange was posted today on the LewRockwell.com blog. In the midst of a discussion of the upcoming trial of Khalid Shaikh Muhammed for 9-11, Judge Napolitano (at 1:51) attempts to explain the Constitution to Mr. O'Reilly, for which he was rewarded with this: "I don't care about the Constitution. Don't be a pinhead." Prior to this, I had never watched O'Reilly. Now I'm thankful I haven't.

Nashville newspaper considers state sovereignty resolutions "a waste of time"

The Tenneseean, a newspaper published in Nashville, doesn't think much of state sovereignty resolutions. Yesterday, it published both an editorial and a guest editorial critical of them.

In the editorial, entitled "'State sovereignty' movement distorts Constitution," The Tennesseean argues that the state sovereignty movement is only a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the current administration in Washington. The paper is embarrassed that Tennessee has become a "leader" in this movement, because, pursuant their HJR 108 (which was enacted), the sponsors have invited legislators in other states to "create a 'working group' to 'enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of its assumption of powers.'''

The editors charge that these accusations have descended to the level of partisan attacks on President Obama. Instead, they see state sovereignty proponents as failing to acknowledge that "economic steps taken may have, in fact prevented a depression or acknowledging that these controls are not permanent." First of all, there is plenty of evidence, such as this report from the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Analysis, that the economic steps taken are likely to worsen a depression. Secondly, may we remind the editors that the federal income tax and the USA PATRIOT Act were sold to us as "temporary" provisions? Power taken by the federal government is not easily given up. Rather, the Federal Government finds justifications for making "temporary" measures permanent.

Of course, they say it is "unsettling" when the resolutions attempt "to paint the federal government as antagonistic to the average American when, in truth, it was the American electorate that put those federal officials in charge. If Tennessee voters are unhappy with Washington's attempts to come up with, for example, health-care reform, they can talk to, or vote out, the senators and representatives whom they elected to make these decisions. The key is to have a constructive, common-sense discussion, in which state and federal officials come together to hammer out what is best for their constituencies."

Apparently, it doesn't matter that President Obama has behaved in the opposite manner from what he promised in his campaign, particularly with respect to banking, defense, and foreign policy. And yes, we still need to talk to our Congressmen and U.S. Senators. But too often, Washington becomes a brick wall when we talk to it.

State sovereignty resolutions, while of limited value, do open up a "constructive, common-sense discussion." When Administrations of both parties, over a period of twenty years, fail to listen to the needs of the American people, we need to consider an alternative approach. State sovereignty is one such alternative. And if that fails, secession is yet another.

The guest editorial, "Movement a waste of time," is by Chip Forrester, chairman of the Tennessee Democratic Party (consider the source):

How in the world can she [State Rep. Susan Lynn] justify such a lame-brained piece of legislation when the state's unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent and some hard-hit counties' jobless rates hover near 20 percent? Working Tennesseans fear they may be the next ones in the unemployment line. Accordingly, many of us are cutting back on our spending, which is having a drastically adverse impact on the state's revenue.

One would hope that Rep. Lynn and like-minded lawmakers would have matured beyond this divisive, meaningless grandstanding. But it's obvious that's not the case, as too many far-right politicians and pundits are spewing alienating rhetoric daily.

Maybe because federal taxation, mandates, and NAFTA have choked our corporations and entrepreneurs so much that they can't create jobs? And who is "spewing alienating rhetoric?" We have shown that state sovereignty has benefits and potential benefits for the Left, for example, in California. The 14 Democrats in the Michigan Senate didn't have a problem with it. The French Left and many non-Marxist socialists don't have a problem with it, either.

Mr. Forrester then asserts that "most scholars and legal experts have debunked the 10th Amendment/state sovereignty movement as nothing more than a fringe group of right-wing zealots who want to disband the Internal Revenue Service and severely curtail the powers of the federal government." Such as? Of course, his assertion cannot be disproven – after all, he would not consider Walter Williams or Thomas DiLorenzo to be scholars, nor Andrew Napolitano or Robert Bork to be legal experts.

I'm all in favor of putting aside partisan politics in times of crisis – but state sovereignty is non-partisan. So, Mr. Forrester, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

The Empire strikes back

Bryce Shonka at the Tenth Amendment Center sees parallels between current events and Roman history -- parallels that we ignore at our peril. From the Tenth Amendment Center website (The original title was "Obama's Imperial Decree: Target Oklahoma"). I have condensed the article somewhat.

Remember the good old days, when one only had to watch out for the Federal Government’s twisted interpretation of the commerce clause to justify tyranny?

Well those days seem to be long gone. The Obama Administration has been employing an old tactic lately – what some might call an imperial threat – and they’re not doing it overseas, either.

STATES UNDER THREAT
The state of Oklahoma is now the target of a direct challenge from US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as justification to violate Oklahoma’s sovereignty as affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

In a letter written to the State Attorney General in April, the Federal government used aggressive language, bringing up the possibility of withholding Federal funds
appropriated for Oklahoma. The reason? A proposed amendment to the State Constitution, which requires voter approval, that would make English the official language of the State.

“What it indicates is the Federal Government’s contempt for the states, in this case Oklahoma, and for the idea of federal — as opposed to national — government. AG Holder believes that Oklahoma is an administrative subdivision of the USA, and that it is perfectly right for him to coerce Oklahomans to do his will. Who cares whether he has ever been to Oklahoma, met an Oklahoman, or thought about Oklahoma?” said Kevin Gutzman, an American historian and New York Times bestselling author.

Oklahoma is not alone as a state challenged by central authority in recent months. Recently, federal firearms licensees in Tennessee and Montana received a letter from another Federal agency, the ATF, who had also issued a decree wrought with hubris - claims by the Federal government of their legal supremacy across the land.

DESTROYING LOCAL GOVERNMENT
“Both of these letters, particularly this letter to the Attorney General of Oklahoma, are very officious,” observed Rob Natelson, professor of law at the University of Montana. “It reminds one eerily of the kinds of communications that started to come out from the Emperor [beginning in the 2nd century AD] to the local cities of the Roman Empire, beginning the course of the ultimate destruction of local government...”

He continued with a strong, decisive tone, “Almost everyone who’s studied in that area agrees that the effect was to sap the life out of the empire, so that everything flowed to the center. All that counted was the Emperor and his bureaucrats…and his courtiers. I look at this and I see this letter which gets close to looking like an order from the central government down to a sovereign state legislature, and I say…WOW. This looks like something that Septimius Severus would have sent to the local officials.”

In Columbus, Ohio last weekend, a rally in support of State Sovereignty drew around 7,000 people. Judge Andrew Napolitano addressed the rally and made similar comments indicating the nature of our current point in US history.

“In the long history of the world, very few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its maximum hour of danger. This is that moment and you are that generation”

IMPERIALISM AND DECLINE
Are these men ‘crying wolf’?
...

“[The DOJ] are not violating any law by sending these letters, but there’s a change in tone, there’s a new and disturbing tone in them. At least the ATF letter was addressed to individuals. This one is addressed to a state legislature - really, it’s a bit much. Besides the fact that there’s the tone, there’s the fact that they sent the letters at all. Most of the letters that were sent out by the emperor were called rescripts, and that’s almost what [the letter from Holder] looks like. The one difference is that a rescript was usually a reply to a request for advice. In some ways this is worse than a rescript because this is unsolicited. A better way to compare it would be to an imperial constitutio - an imperial decision or decree.” Natelson added.

THE OTHER WAY AROUND
...

Worldwide trends in recent political elections do exhibit signs of a move away from central planner candidates, a trend the United States has been contrary to for nearly a decade, but perhaps the pendulum has reversed itself.

“As the economy grows increasingly complicated, increasingly interdependent and increasingly technological, centralized control (which never worked very well) works less and less, and people are less willing to stand for it. This reflects a visceral gut
reaction people have against centralized control, because they know from their own life it makes no sense, though it always takes time for those mega-trends to filter into the political class,” Natelson continued.

“Eventually, when a mule gets hit over the head enough times it figures out what’s going on, and eventually the politicians will figure out what’s going on, too.”

People in the US are coming together by the thousands, demanding decentralization and nullification of Federal powers. Never before have the political elites had to contend with a non-partisan political force on such a massive scale. A storm seems to be brewing; a maelstrom of everyday Americans rallying around the document designed to keep the government in fear of the people - instead of the other way around.

Saturday's Liber-TEA party successful!

Organizers estimate the crowd at 10,000 to hear Judge Andrew Napolitano speak at the Ohio Statehouse. Here are the YouTubes of Judge Napolitano and Columbus City Council candidate Alicia Healy speaking to the rally, courtesy of the Ohio Freedom Alliance:

Text of Judge Napolitano's speech (from the Tenth Amendment Center)

Judge Napolitano, Part 1



Judge Napolitano, Part 2



Alicia Healy



Another Tea Party has been scheduled for Athens Sat. Aug. 22, 11 am- 1 pm at the Athens County Fairgrounds. Here is a link for additional information.

Judge Napolitano to speak at the Ohio Liber-Tea Party August 1

It's official now. Judge Andrew Napolitano, author of The Constitution in Exile, A Nation of Sheep, and other books describing how the Feds have violated our Constitutional liberties, will be the featured speaker at the Ohio Liber-Tea Party, Saturday, August 1, beginning at 2 pm on the Ohio Statehouse grounds in Columbus.

Here is a flyer you can use to promote the occasion.

Oklahoma's Governor vetoes State Sovereignty Resolution

The granddaddy of them all, Oklahoma's HJR1003, passed both houses of the Oklahoma legislature, only to run into a Governor who dismissed it with this veto message:

VETO MESSAGES
HJR1003
Without question, the state of Oklahoma and its leaders support the U.S. Constitution and the rights it guarantees to the states and their citizens, and there is no need to spend valuable legislative time on a resolution expressing support for any particular amendment or constitutional right. Furthermore, HJR 1003 alleges, without offering any evidence or explanation, that past and current U.S. leaders may have violated the Constitution and committed crimes against the states and the country. HJR 1003 also implies that the state should reject federal tax dollars paid to Washington, DC, by Oklahoma citizens, an act that would prevent our tax dollars from being used in Oklahoma to address critical needs in transportation, education, health care, law enforcement, veterans programs and many other vital services beneficial to our state. In short, HJR 1003 could be detrimental to Oklahoma and does not serve the state or its citizens in any positive manner.

Needless to say, we disagree. The history of the United States since 1861 has been an almost unbroken Federal attack on the rights of the States and the people, to the point where some Constitutional scholars have been concerned that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have become a nullity. Past and current U.S. leaders have violated the Constitution -- read any book by Judge Andrew Napolitano or Thomas DiLorenzo, and you will get a thick catalogue of violations, from Abraham Lincoln's shutting down the Maryland legislature, to the April 7th Homeland Security advisory virtually declaring dissenters against Federal overreaching to be "right wing extremists" who should be treated as terrorist sympathizers.

The Governor makes a valid point about turning down Federal stimulus money -- but has he (or anyone else) looked into the cost of maintaining Federal programs to the State treasury? Is it possible that, at least for some programs, the States would be better off designing their own solutions to problems and telling the Feds, "No, thank you"? I am not suggesting that there are many instances where this would work, but no one, to my knowledge, is even exploring the possibility!

No, Governor, HJR1003 would have served the citizens of Oklahoma in a very positive manner by telling the Feds that we have been taxed enough for purposes that have nothing to do with perfecting the union, national defense (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actually endangering the national defense by promoting terrorism against the U.S. in reaction to our presence there), general welfare, and certainly not the preservation of the blessings of liberty on ourselves or our posterity!

Rep. Charles Key, however, is not taking no for an answer. He has reintroduced HJR1003 as HCR1028, which focuses on removing the Homeland Security "fusion center" there, and would be a nullification of the Federal law authorizing it. HCR1028 is a concurrent resolution that does not require gubernatorial approval.

Game not over. Stay tuned.

Virtual buckeye to AxXiom for Liberty

Why the Oklahoma resolution is significant

Walter Williams has a gift of writing what I think more clearly than I do. Here is what he has to say about the Oklahoma sovereignty resolution, about which I reported June 16:

"Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution's framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, 'The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.' Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not 'subordinate' to the national government, but rather the two are 'coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.' "

However, Prof. Williams adds:

"Both parties and all branches of the federal government have made a mockery of the checks and balances, separation of powers and the republican form of government envisioned by the founders. One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles. State efforts, such as Oklahoma's, create a glimmer of hope that one day Americans and their elected representatives will realize that the federal government is the creation of the states. A bit of rebellion by officials in other states will speed that process along. " [Emphasis added]

Our House Concurrent Resolution 31 is a baby step in the same direction. Judge Andrew Napolitano calls America a "nation of sheep." But the sheep are starting to get restless...


A virtual buckeye to The Virginian Rebel.