This book by Andrew P. Napolitano has the subtitle, “Myth, Power, and Deception in American History.” Libertarians will like the book and there are scattered places that Liberals/Progressives will be pleased with what is written. The book is not, in my judgment, enjoyable to read. However, I’m glad to have been exposed to the well-researched and well-documented information.
There are passages to anger almost everyone except strict Libertarians and Constitutionalists. For example, the book is very outspoken against George W. Bush and the approach used by his administration to obtain Congressional approval of the second Iraq war. It is also comments that, “The 2000 presidential election will be remembered as one of the most glaring examples of the federal judiciary infringing up the fundamental right to vote.” Progressives will enjoy that but not the observation that they believe“…all power goes to the gang that gets the most votes, and all (legal) structural efforts to temper that power…must give way to the majority will” They also believe that they “…can use to power of the government to steal from those who have and give to those who do not.” The Progressive Woodrow Wilson probably took or allowed more actions to infringe on individual rights than any other President. The book criticizes both Bush and Obama for their support the Patriot Act. The author proposes that people voted for Obama not because he had any different policies, but because he “…was not a Republican.”
I recommend the book to anyone interested in analyzing the Constitution and actions by the courts. There is an interesting discussion of how the Sixteen and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution, which respectively allow income taxes and takes the election of Senators away from State legislators, are unconstitutional. The author warns that liberty’s tombstone will read, “This is for your own good.” He also warns that checking the book out of the library might put the reader on a government watch list.
The final page of the book advocates, “We should abolish the federal income tax, prohibit eminent domain, impose term congressional limits, make Congress part-time, return the power to elect senators to State legislators, abolish the Federal Reserve system, and prosecute for malfeasance any member of Congress who cannot articulate where the Constitution authorizes whatever he or she is voting for…” The book lays a solid groundwork for those positions and “…traces the deterioration of American freedom year by year…” There is a warning in the introduction to those who believe the government can be trusted. An FBI agent told Martha Stewart in “…an informal conversation in the presence of others, that she is not the target of a federal criminal probe, and she replies that she did not sell a certain stock on a certain day. They both lied, but she went to jail and the FBI agent kept his job.”
The first lie the book confronts is “All Men Are Created Equal.” Four of the first five Presidents owned slaves. The formula developed for calculating apportionment of the House of Representatives was based on the number of free persons, minus the number of “Indians not taxed,” plus “three fifths of all other persons.” The Constitution therefore counted slaves to be 60 percent of free, white people. The book also documents several actions by President Lincoln that indicate he was not against slavery. He warned that he would end slavery in the South in September, 1862 and made his declaration, in part, that his objective was to preserve the Union and “…not to either save or destroy slavery.” The Emancipation Proclamation only ended slavery in the areas “in rebellion,” which did not even include pro-North areas in Georgia and other Southern states.
The government’s willingness to ignore established law about property rights is emphasized by the auto industry bailout. Bondholders are “secured creditors,” which means that by law they hold a higher ranking in the settlements than shareholders or unsecured creditors. The government ignored established law to award majority (55%) ownership in Chrysler to the United Auto Workers.
Perhaps the most remarkable willingness of the courts to ignore the Constitution was allowing imprisonment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the fundamental rights of Americans were being infringed based on race and allowed the persecution to continue based on the impression that “…safety was more important to the Court than the reality of individual liberties…”
The Second Amendment to the Constitution referring to the right to bear arms of course is given prominent discussion in the longest chapter. The point is made that those wishing to impose gun control often say they are interested in the safety that would be provided if there were more laws against guns. Mr. Napolitano presents the opinion that it would only make tyrants safer and writes that “…liberty’s tombstone will read, ‘This is for your own good.’” Significant amounts of data are presented to justify why citizens should be allowed to possess and carry firearms. “The states with the most lawfully concealed weapons had the lowest rates of crime.”
The government’s role in controlling what prescription medications are approved for use is an interesting subject that deserves more consideration. The Food and Drug Administration requires about twelve years and three stages of clinical testing before they will approve a new medication. People who are dying of a terminal illness are denied using an unapproved medication that might save their lives but haven’t been proven as yet to have undesirable side effects. It makes no difference whether the sick person is willing to take the risk.
I found the arguments presented against the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax to be less interesting, but must say that the author is passionate and detailed about his views. Readers of the commentaries on the subject on this web site won’t be surprised that I enjoyed the arguments against Social Security, “…which has been a pyramid scheme from the beginning.” There is a troubling observation that the program leads people to plan on living on government money during retirement.
My final comment is that the book is worth reading to better understand the history of the Constitution and the role of the courts in defining what that document requires or intended. I believe the book is worthwhile for people from every political view. There are times it will make you frustrated or even angry, but it will make you think, and that is why I recommend it.