creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
9 May 2013
Why We Should Mistrust the Government

It should come as no surprise that President Obama told Ohio State students at graduation ceremonies last … Read More.

2 May 2013
More Holes in the Fourth Amendment

Here they go again. The Obama administration has asked its allies in Congress to introduce legislation that … Read More.

25 Apr 2013
Boston and Freedom

The government's fidelity to the Constitution is never more tested than in a time of crisis. The urge to do … Read More.

Gazillions

Comment

Gazillions. That's the number of times the federal government has spied on Americans since 9/11 through the use of drones, legal search warrants, illegal search warrants, federal agent-written search warrants and just plain government spying. This is according to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who, when he asked the government to tell him what it was doing to violate our privacy, was given a classified briefing. The senator — one of just a few in the U.S. Senate who believes that the Constitution means what it says — was required by federal law to agree not to reveal what spies and bureaucrats told him during the briefing.

The rules for classified briefings of members of Congress on areas of government behavior that the government wants to keep from its employers — the American people — are a real Catch-22. Those rules allow representatives and senators to interrogate government officials about government behavior that they are afraid to reveal, and they require those officials to answer honestly and completely. But the rules keep the interrogations secret, and they expressly prohibit members of Congress from telling anyone what they have learned.

So Paul and his colleagues who joined in the secret briefing now know the terrible truth about the government watching us, but they cannot reveal what they know. Paul — who is the son of Rep. Ron Paul, the greatest congressional defender of limited government in our era — when asked what he learned at these secret briefings and aware that he could be prosecuted for telling the truth, chose a fictitious word to describe the vast number of violations of privacy at the hands of federal agents: gazillions. Paul's personal courage in using a word like gazillions to convey an oblique message of truth in the face of an unjust law that commanded his silence reminded me of St. Thomas More's silence in the face of an unjust law that commanded his assent to the king's headship of the church.

The feds are no happier with the senator's personal courage than the king was with St. Thomas More's, but there is not much they can do about it.

If you check out your dog-eared dictionary, you will find that if it is listed at all, it gets a mention as slang. Yet most of us hearing or seeing that word understand it to mean some huge — perhaps even incalculable — number.

The point here is terrifying. If the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, how can it do things to us to which we have not consented? And when it does these things — like send a drone over your back yard to learn who is coming to your Saturday barbeque or to see what fertilizer you are using in your vegetable garden or to take a peek into your living room or bedroom — and when the laws the government has written prevent our elected representatives from telling us what it is doing, we are at the doorsteps of tyranny. The government gave Paul the distinct impression that it was afraid of our exercise of our personal freedoms, and thus it needs to watch us as we do so. This is the same government whose stated principal purpose is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and thus personal freedom.

What has become of the Jeffersonian value of the primacy of the individual over the government in a free society? How have we lost the American value that the government works for us, and we don't work for the government? What remains of the constitutionally guaranteed right to be left alone?

The answer to these questions goes to the nature of human freedom and personal courage. Freedom lies in our hearts, but to survive, it must do more than just lie there. Its essence is the exercise of unfettered choices, and the unfettered choices we make address our perpetual yearning for truth. This is a natural process that — just like the muscles in our bodies — will atrophy if unused.

So, when the government scares us into the disuse of freedom, we have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother comes calling. And when he does come, on his face there will be no smile.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is "It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom." To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM



Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment
Judge,

While I agree with nearly everything you say, I had to defend for a moment the practice of classified briefings. There's nothing wrong with the rule in general. To keep Americans safe, we can't have our senators compromising--by accident, not necessarily on purpose, although political agendas come into it as well--vital information about our enemies and our strategies for dealing with them. Remember Valerie Plame?

That said, it's a tough area. I view it as his duty to inform us if our government has ignored its constitutional duties, despite the law. The ability to stand against an unjust law is what separates us from the Nazis. But practically, he may get tossed in jail for it, which is not where we need him to be.

My point is, the law is not itself unjust. It can protect innocent lives from the stupidity -certain- senators seem to have about national security. I don't agree with bashing it altogether. BUT...I do see where you're coming from.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Publius
Thu Aug 9, 2012 3:12 PM
Cheney and Bush's fingerprints are all over this spy drama. I can't be the only one who remembers our media and most bloggers supporting Cheney and Bush's assertion that we needed to spy on Americans for "Homeland Security".
Hats off to two true criminals and violators of our Constitution: Cheney the Malevolent and Bush the Enabler.
Hey, here's an idea, let's elect another Republican President and Vice President. They can continue spying on Americans at home and abroad, and they can start wars just as Bush and Cheney did when they turned America into a nation who would rather fight than switch, even when the fight is unjust or the switch would save American lives.
Comment: #2
Posted by: morgan
Thu Aug 9, 2012 4:20 PM
Judge....I am no fan of a Big Brother state, and I'd like the government at all levels to stop doing things that either don't need to be done, or can be done by the private sector more efficiently and less costly. However, I can't see the logic behind saying that the government is looking in my backyard to see who comes to my barbeque. Do our government agents involved in this activity really have the time and resources to just poke around and see what average Americans are doing? It stretches the imagination to think that an agency would start looking at normal law-abiding citizens just to see what they're up to, when there are so many legitimate criminal and terrorism targets that should be occupying their time. Where's the motive to misuse this system and is there any evidence that information gathered has been misused against an innocent person? Until I see some evidence that an average American citizen, going about his own business, was somehow victimized by these programs in some definable way, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Steve Williams
Thu Aug 9, 2012 4:39 PM
Morgan's ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Your idol Obama, after relentlessly criticizing r
Them while campaigning, has maintained just about everything Bush did in this area. Are you calling Obama a criminal to you partisan sheep.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Thetruth
Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:11 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
May. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Joseph Farah
Joseph FarahUpdated 15 May 2013
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 15 May 2013
Dennis Prager
Dennis PragerUpdated 14 May 2013

6 Dec 2012 Republicans for Big Government

15 Dec 2011 The Government as Lawbreaker, Again

25 Oct 2012 Silence on Libya