No products in the cart.

News

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano – Natural Law As Restraint Against Tyranny

This article comes from Sott.net

by William Barbe

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, once a Fox News TV show host – and now an outspoken critic of the US government – delivered a short, intriguing, and, I believe, important speech at the Mises Institute in Costa Mesa, California, on November 8th, 2014.

He began by talking about the origins of Natural Laws, beginning with this quote from Sir Thomas More’s treason case under Henry VIII:

Some men say the earth is flat.
Some men say the earth is round.
But if it is flat, could Parliament make it round?
And if it round, could the kings command flatten it?

More was appealing to the jury of the Laws of Nature that restrain even the government. This was the classic Natural Law argument. More was not the originator of this argument; that was Saint Thomas Aquinas nearly 800 years ago. The English liberal philosopher John Locke picked up on this, as did Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison when he was a Scrivener for the US Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson’s version of More’s phrase — “We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — articulates the view that our rights come from our humanity.

Napolitano asks: What are these rights that come from humanity? And how can the government trample them? The concept of Natural Rights articulated by Aquinas is that there are areas of human behavior for which we do not need a government permission slip in order to make free choices. Things like freedom to develop your own personality, to think as you wish, to say what you think, the right to worship or not to worship, to assemble in groups or to refuse to assemble, to petition the government for redress of your differences, and the right to defend yourself against tyrants. These are the quintessential ‘American rights’. The right to be left alone, for example, codified in the Fourth Amendment today is called the ‘right to privacy’.

Napolitano answers with the theory that we have surrendered some of our rights to the government so that the government will protect the rights that we have not surrendered. The idea is that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed. He argues that no one is alive today that consented when the Constitution was enacted, therefore it is a fiction. The fiction is that we consented to surrender our rights where in reality our rights have been stolen from us through the use of force.

Read more here.

0

ldiffey

Oath Keepers Merchandise

4 comments

  1. A crystalline manifest of our Cause!For myself,I would rather have it be me rather than my son who is imprisoned or shot in that town square.I will pay in advance for his liberty.

  2. Basically Judge Andrew P. Napolitano said what Dr. Edwin Vieira said, just in different words: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

    The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
    The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a
    disability.”

    What it all boils down to is this; The Constitution and its Preamble is written in the present tense with the words “We the people”. “We…” agree to the words on the US Constitution as defining our government and the duties that those who serve within it must carry out, and to the “Forbiddens” that they are not allowed to mess with in anyway.

    The ONLY lawful authority they have is when they keep their Oath and do their duty as assigned by the US Constitution and by the state Constitutions where they applies (state governments are bound y both).

    When they do not follow the contract that is agreed upon, we can fire them at any time, replace them at any time. Because they broke the contract & Oath(s) , and in doing so broke some laws,we can charge, arrest and prosecute them.

    But for us to do so we must train as the Militia of the several states – which I think is a good idea, but am not sure that it is a requirement when the treason and other crimes are so blatant. But it would be safer.

    What is now operating as our government, stealing our money, and selling our lands to foreign interests, etc is “a legal fiction”. That includes the three federal branches and the un-allowed unlawful 4th military branch.

    But it is always our decision to allow it to go on, or to start working to stop it.

    There are many ways, but each state is sovereign in its own right, and taking back control of our states first while educating our people and our children; and then removing and replacing those who serve within our federal government is probably the safest for the greatest amount of people.
    I am not sure why everyone ignores that the ONLY federal duty concerning immigration is they create what it takes for them to become US citizens. Constitutionally it is the STATES that decide who is allowed in.

    Article 1. Section 8. Clause 4: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”

    Section. 9. “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…”

    Then there is nothing else about it until the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    So the borders defense of each state must be under the states or the people of the state except when section 4 kicks in:
    Section. 4. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; …”

    Are we being invaded, I believe so, but I also feel that we also have a treasonous federal government. That the duty within each state is ours to defend our border (10th Amendment) as it is NOT assigned to the feds except during invasions.

    If anyone else finds differently within the US Constitution, please let me know. I admit that I am operating more on caffeine then sleep so may have missed something.

  3. Oh, and about Section. 9. “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…”

    Just because this section “or Importation of such Persons” no longer applies does not mean that the rest does not apply as per the 10th Amendment, since that duty was NOT given to the federal gov. There is a big difference between deciding what it takes for an immigrant to BECOME a US citizen (uniform Rule of Naturalization) and deciding who is allowed to come into and stay within our states.

  4. Judge Andrew Napilitano is right on and should be followed. I ask everyone who took the oath to support this man and stick to your oath.

Comments are closed.