Wednesday, April 20, 2005

REMINDER: Judge Napolitano

SCROLL DOWN FOR NEW POSTS

CIVIL LIBERTIES IN WARTIME: a talk by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

"Let's put aside all of the procedural problems with enacting [the PATRIOT Act]. Forget about the fact that there was no debate. Forget about the fact that most members of Congress didn’t even have an opportunity to read it. It is a direct assault on at least three amendments to the Constitution: the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. The PATRIOT Act legitimates the notion that if we give up certain freedoms, the government will keep us safer. I reject that notion from a moral and legal point of view. I also reject it from a practical point of view. It doesn't work. The government doesn't need our freedoms to keep us safer. No one-no lawyer, judge, or historian-can point to a single incident in American history where national security was impaired because someone insisted on their right to free speech or their right to privacy or their right to due process."
--Judge Napolitano

Time: Wednesday, April 20, 2005, at 12:30 p.m.
Location: Greene Hall 101, Columbia Law School
Pizza will be served

COME AND BRING ALL YOUR FRIENDS!!!


Judge Napolitano is the Senior Judicial Analyst at Fox News, and the author of "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When The Government Breaks Its Own Laws." Judge Napolitano sat on the New Jersey Superior Court for eight years, and served as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School for eleven years. He received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University and his Juris Doctor from the University of Notre Dame.

For further reading:
Nat Hentoff interviews Judge Napolitano for the Village Voice: "Fierce Watchdog of the Constitution."

Nick Gillespie interviews Judge Napolitano for Reason magazine: "The Born-Again Individualist."

Judge Napolitano writes for Reason magazine: "A Constitution of Convenience: The government can't have it both ways."

2 comments:

Ellis D. Tecnine said...

The appeals court rightly ruled in favor of the church, and the Supremes should have thrown the Bush administration's appeal in the crapper. Instead, they are going to hear the case, and they ought to rule decisively on the side of freedom.

The church should win this case, of course. It's about the right to control one's own consciousness. What's more fundamental than that? How can anyone possibly argue that there is a constitutional right to rip apart a baby in your womb, but not a constitutional right to do as you please with your own mind? Asshats!

I took ayahuasca prepared by a shaman in the Peruvian Amazon a few years back, and it was one of the most incredible trips of my life.

Anonymous said...

bad ass.