[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release

At 5:10 AM 9/23/96, Brian Davis wrote:
>There isn't such a clause.  The allowed restrictions were developed in
>case law.
>Constitutional literalists take note:  the First Amendment says nothing
>about what the executive branch or the states can do ....

Which is why President Jefferson was able to say:

"While the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...," I am hereby
outlawing all discussion of the following subjects:.... And I have had it
with the Catholics and Jews in this country. While Congress has no power to
make laws respecting the establishment of religion or the exercise thereof,
I am under no such restrictions. Therefore, I am ordering the immediate
arrest and summary execution of all Papists and Jews...."

Seriously, does not the Constitution and Bill of Rights define what states
may do? And Presidents? The Executive is under various restrictions, and
cannot behave unconstitutionally. After all, if Alabama, for example,
reinstituted slavery, would not the 14th Amendment trump this? If
California were to, say, ban speech critical of women's or homosexual's
rights, would not the First Amendment trump this attempt?

--Tim May

We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
[email protected]  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."