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

Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Mark M. wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Bill Stewart wrote:
> > The First Amendment does not contain the phrase "national security"
> > anywhere in it.  It does, however, begin with a rather explicit
> > "Congress shall make no law" which it applies to a bunch of things.
> > However, the body of the Constitution does say there should be a
> > Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has (fairly reasonably) given itself
> > the job of deciding what's Constitutional and what's not.
> > The Supremes have, over the years, made a bunch of generally outrageous
> > decisions about what kinds of speech are protected by the First Amendment
> > and what kinds aren't, though their opinions have been gradually
> > improving since some of the really appalling ones earlier in the century.
> I did a little searching and couldn't find anything about a national security
> exception in the Consitution.  It's already a stretch to claim that disclosure
> of information vital to "nation security" is treason.  The Espionage Act, which
> is so obviously unconstitutional, seems to make "harmful" speech illegal.

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 ....


> Mark
> - -- 
> PGP encrypted mail prefered.
> Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
> http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/
> Version: 2.6.3
> Charset: noconv
> iQEVAwUBMkWIpCzIPc7jvyFpAQFJFggAi9H/vbu9GN21rbjJnhyUoHy3TEZ+1ZsI
> in88Z9zqCuFyv28Q+vqKgTl0pvsBQNps1Ji4GXCv2LMaxGCbuzsvDLFxiqqVF8ev
> fC7MB7fl1r33ik1QCngygoPonb9yj79Ok0oKgms6sNNsVEkGe3hn5QHahNc7TRJX
> lzkHJ6ufVI/yNmh3KtqwWlAjE1vZ8esOrExRpiszrQDK1gDlNRFqA0Yor3bsDrlE
> wedkFUioEbK0Xv24ajeU0s9dYgkDt25OxUENT2ddnqzD1lfVOrVLx1zmroMl4mh1
> MC1D2dd8ErN25/V83phFLbpzNA7EPKYQyNZtzOY28uD/XpoqziGS1g==
> =CrOM