Judge Napolitano On Spending: 'You Don't Cut Cancer Out One Cell At A Time......

 

 

 

 

Published on Jan 3, 2013

On Wednesday, Judge Napolitano weighed in on the fiscal cliff deal, going after Republicans for failing to do the job that they were sent to Washington to do.

Now, the next battle in Washington looms, with the U.S. debt ceiling needing to be increased once again. The judge believes once the debt ceiling hits, the government should stop borrowing money and immediately cut spending across the board to "live within our means."

"When you have a cancer, you cut it out. Not a cell at a time, you cut out the cancerous organ!" said Napolitano on Fox Business Network's 'Varney & Co.'

That prompted Stuart Varney to ask what would happen if the U.S. government cut out so much spending all at once.

"If the government shrank the government, if it shrank each department by 10 percent, it would save a great deal of money. There would be a lot less obligation on the part of debt service for us to pay. I know there would be an initial reverberation here, you could call it an earthquake if you want, because we are so addicted to government borrowing," said Napolitano.

Varney argued there would be "an immediate economic crash," but Napolitano countered that the country would get through it and be "far better off in the long run."

Varney then brought up one specific example of how drastic cuts in spending impact the economy. For instance, a meat inspector in Iowa who is paid by the federal government. If his job is cut, and the meat isn't getting inspected, then by law it can not go to market, Varney explained.

"You really were taught by socialists at the London School of Economics, weren't you?" joked Napolitano. Varney said he agrees with Napolitano's desire for a balanced budget, but does not concur that it can be done immediately.

This video is a response to Judge Napolitano on NY Paper Outing Gun Owners: 'Invites Retaliation Against Law-Abiding Citizens'

Judge Napolitano: Republicans

Can the Government Force You To Eat Broccoli?

Can the Government Force You To Eat Broccoli?
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

http://www.creators.com/opinion/judge-napolitano/can-the-government-force-you-to-eat-broccoli.html

Can the Secret Service Tell You To Shut Up?

Can the Secret Service Tell You To Shut Up? by Andrew P. Napolitano Recently by Andrew P. Napolitano: Can the President Kill You?

The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Speech is language and other forms of expression; and association and petition connote physical presence in reasonable proximity to those of like mind and to government officials, so as to make your opinions known to them.

The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as stemming from our humanity. So, what happens if you can speak freely, but the government officials at whom your speech is aimed refuse to hear you? And what happens if your right to associate and to petition the government is confined to areas where those of like mind and the government are not present? This is coming to a street corner near you.

Certain rights, like thought and privacy and travel, can be exercised on their own. You don't need the government to cooperate with you; you just need to be left alone. Other rights, like those intended to influence the political process, require that the government not resist your exercise of them. Remember the old one-liner from Philosophy 101: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make any noise? Here's the contemporary version of that: If you can criticize the government, but it refuses to hear you, does your exercise of the freedom of speech have any value?

When the Framers of the Constitution wrote the First Amendment, they lived in a society in which anyone could walk up to George Washington or John Adams or Thomas Jefferson on a public street and say directly to them whatever one wished. They never dreamed of a regal-like force of armed agents keeping public officials away from the public, as we have today. And they never imagined that it could be a felony for anyone to congregate in public within earshot or eyesight of certain government officials. And yet, today in America, it is.

Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.

 Thus, federal agents whose work is to protect public officials and their friends may prohibit the speech and the gatherings of folks who disagree with those officials or permit the speech and the gatherings of those who would praise them, even though the First Amendment condemns content-based speech discrimination by the government. The new law also provides that anyone who gathers in a "restricted" area may be prosecuted. And because the statute does not require the government to prove intent, a person accidentally in a restricted area can be charged and prosecuted, as well.


Permitting people to express publicly their opinions to the president only at a time and in a place and manner such that he cannot hear them violates the First Amendment because it guarantees the right to useful speech; and unheard political speech is politically useless. The same may be said of the rights to associate and to petition. If peaceful public assembly and public expression of political demands on the government can be restricted to places where government officials cannot be confronted, then those rights, too, have been neutered.

Political speech is in the highest category of protected speech. This is not about drowning out the president in the Oval Office. This is about letting him know what we think of his work when he leaves the White House. This is speech intended to influence the political process.

This abominable legislation enjoyed overwhelming support from both political parties in Congress because the establishment loves power, fears dissent and hates inconvenience, and it doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and only three members of the House voted against it. And the president signed it in secret. It is more typical of contemporary China than America. It is more George III than George Washington.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to assure open, wide, robust, uninhibited political debate, debate that can be seen and heard by those it seeks to challenge and influence, whether it is convenient for them or not. Anything short of that turns the First Amendment into a mirage.


Reprinted with the author's permission.


March 15, 2012

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, and the host of “FreedomWatch” on the Fox Business Network. His latest book is It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom.