[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:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 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
Constitutional literalists take note: the First Amendment says nothing
about what the executive branch or the states can do ....
> - --
> PGP encrypted mail prefered.
> Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3
> Charset: noconv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----