"James S. Tyre" writes: : Tim May is correct (as is Declan's clarification of his earlier note). : If the amendment does become law, however, do not expect two things: : : . . . . : : 2. Do not expect that a case will involve a broad coalition of : plaintiffs, as was the case with the CDA. Expect that the courts will : only entertain an action by a plaintiff with traditional standing: one : who goes through all of the bureaucratic hoops trying to get a license, : and then is turned down. There would, undoubtedly, have to be some showing of standing, but that would not require going through the bureaucratic hoops of trying to get a license _if_ the denial of a license is not reviewable under the APA, and perhaps not even then. It is the requirement that one get a license, not the denial of the license, that is a prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment and if a licensing scheme on speech is to be upheld it must provide for prompt judicial review. (And normally providing judicial review is not enought to get around the prior restraint challenge.) -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists