"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

Alexander Hamilton

Federalist Papers, No. 33, 1788

There in the front of the classroom at the Boyd School of Law on the UNLV campus, fighting a severe cold and an uncooperative sound system, was the man who literally wrote the book on the history of free speech in times of war, Geoffrey R. Stone, distinguished professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

The complete title of his 2004 book, which I read a couple of years ago, is: "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime, From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism."

For Monday's lecture to an overflow audience of mostly law students and professors, Stone cut his topic in half, concentrating on the events of the past 100 years and focusing heavily on the role of the courts in failing to defend civil rights and liberties in the face of fear and emotions.

He started with World War I and Congress' passage of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which resulted in the prosecution of 2,000 citizens for opposing the war. These ranged from Mollie Steimer, a 4-foot-9, 90-pound Russian immigrant who tossed anti-war fliers from a rooftop, to Eugene V. Debs, who received almost 1 million votes as the Socialist Party presidential candidate in 1912 and ran again while in prison in 1920.

Debs' campaign button showed him in prison garb and bore the words: "For President -- Convict No. 9653." He again garnered almost a million votes.

The courts upheld the convictions.

And in World War II, the courts again acquiesced as 120,000 Japanese, two-thirds of them American citizens, were forced into concentration camps and Congress passed the Smith Act of 1940.

Stone then cited the Cold War and McCarthyism, once again noting that the courts were risk averse and reluctant to challenge the popular will.

He granted the Supreme Court had shown some fortitude by refusing to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers and in handling some recent detainees in the war on terrorism.

Yes, the courts and Congress deserve all the opprobrium that history now heaps upon them for trammeling civil liberties, but I was sitting there in the audience with Stone's book turned to page 536, waiting patiently.

As his lecture neared the end, as his book does, he addressed the critical players in protecting a free democratic society -- us.

"The ability to preserve the rights and liberties of individuals depends not on the president, not Congress, not on the courts, but on the citizens ... " Stone lectured.

"We could leave here tonight and not a one of us would be surprised to know there had been a terrorist attack on Los Angeles while we had been in here. I'm not suggesting we had one, by the way.

"It is therefore imperative while we have the time to think clearly about the issues ... because if we wait to make these judgments until we are again faced at the moment of crisis and anxiety and fear, then there is a very effective probability that we will do the same then that the United States has done in the past, which is to overreact, to excessively restrict constitutional rights ... and then later regret it."

That's what I came to hear, Stone's version of the quotes on page 536 from Justice Learned Hand in 1944: "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."

Since the dawn of the nation, we have been a fallible people, prone to choosing safety over liberty, despite the stern warnings of the Founders. A little remediation in the founding principles is warranted from time to time, and not just for judges, lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats.

Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal and writes about free speech and the role of the newspaper. He may be reached at 383-0261 or via e-mail at tmitchell@review-journal.com.