The Constitution in Exile by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

To me, the broad themes were nothing new. Surely any self-respecting Libertarian MUST recognize that the Constitution is in serious danger, and I did know that before reading this book. However, I did learn some important things. Prior to reading this book, I understood the problems, but I didn't have a proper understanding of what led to some of these problems.

A primary focus of the book is how the Supreme Court has allowed Congress to pass unconstitutional laws. This was particularly interesting, because Judge Napolitano does a good job of explaining not only that they've placed their seal of approval on unconstitutional legislation, but explaining the particular excuses they've used--and a lot of it comes down to a perversion of the so-called Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

What most people don't understand, and which this book explains quite well, is that "regulate" didn't mean the same thing to the Founding Fathers that it means to many people today. Today, when you hear "regulate" you immediately think of "lots and lots of laws." But in the context of this clause, it simply means "to make regular."

Through a perversion of this clause, Congress has presumed to legislate everything from what the clause originally intended, all the way down to toilet size (what would Thomas Jefferson think?). This book explores not just why Congress does that (of course they do--we're letting them) but why the courts have allowed them to get away with it.

Particularly in the last few chapters, this book makes a clear point: the government is out of control, they're not following the Constitution they've sworn to protect, and we need to get things back under control before it's too late. His discussion of the ill-named PATRIOT Act is particularly alarming and depressing. How has these obscenity been allowed to stand? That's what I'd like to know, and I'm glad to know that Judge Napolitano seems to wonder the same thing.

The most important point of the book is that the Constitution has been tortured to the degree that present interpretations in the courts hardly resemble the original intent at all. A lot of this comes down to a failure to recognize Natural Law. The definitions of Natural Law in this book are fairly good--and I won't complain too much, because the conclusions in the book are extremely close to my own--however, some of the assumptions that lead to those conclusions I think are flawed. That is, in my opinion, the greatest failing of this book.

The book correctly identifies our rights as natural. We have all of our rights--more than anyone could possibly list--simply by virtue of our humanity, not as a result of some legal document. However, too much emphasis is placed on the religious idea of our rights coming from our "creator."

The origins of the Natural Law don't really affect the point of the book, or the validity of Natural Law, but I must make my opinion perfectly clear.

If you're already a creationist, this explanation might seem perfectly rational. If you're not a creationist but are religious, you might be able to make some intellectually lazy excuses to accept that view, but for the rest of us, we need a better explanation for the origin of Natural Law.

True, the Declaration of Independence identifies rights as coming from our creator, but we must consider the source of that document. It was written by Thomas Jefferson, a pre-Darwin Deist. In other words, he was certainly no Christian (indeed, he wasn't a theist at all). I feel confidant that he would agree with my analysis, because it becomes obvious, upon a study of his religious beliefs, that he meant only to express that we have rights by virtue of our humanity, rather than through the grace of a king, which was the prevailing form of thought at that time.

So, if we have to exclude theology from the debate, what can be the basis of our rights? The simple answer is: property. Beginning with the self-ownership of the individual, we can trace a line of property that is the basis of all of our rights under Natural Law. If you own yourself (and you do) then you also own your time and labor; thus, you own the fruits of your time and labor. You can follow that chain of thought all the way to the end and find that your rights are practically limitless--the only just limitation on your rights being the equal rights of others.

I think that's a more practical and historically accurate point of view than just saying that our rights come from some imaginary god. That's my only major point of disagreement with The Constitution in Exile. It doesn't change my enjoyment of the book, but I think it's important to point out, because too many people seem to think that America was founded on Christian principles. We need to nip that in the bud.

Once you get past the slightly faulty definition of Natural Law in the introduction, it's all smooth (albeit depressing) sailing for the rest of the book.

Structurally, I give it a passing grade, but not an excellent one. Certain points are repeated for emphasis, which is fine, but I feel like some of that could have easily been trimmed back to make room for more examples--particularly in the later chapters. While it's important to understand the minor cases that have led us into the state we're in, I think the book could have benefited from more emphasis on major issues, such as the PATRIOT Act or the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. I learned a lot from the earlier chapters, but it was those later chapters that made me shout in anger while I was reading.

Despite a few problems, I'm definitely adding this to my list of books I'll be recommending to everyone. The issues discussed cannot be ignored. Read it, and by the time you're done ranting and cursing the government, you'll be motivated to do something before it's too late to save what's left of the Constitution.

My score... 4.5 out of 5.

Get your copy here
Author's website

Back

Home • Contact