Fake News for Big Brother

[Steve Schear]

At 05:41 PM 5/1/2003 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 02:07  PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
>>On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 09:42:21AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>>On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:09:29AM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
>>>>If I speak for myself, the First Amendment applies.
>>>>
>>>>But should it apply even to corporations? Are such entities considered to
>>>>be persons? Should they have "rights"?


>>>>I cited the full text of the First. It doesn't talk about who has 
>>>>rights: it says "Congress shall make no law."
>
>Again, the full text. You need to read it, and absorb exactly what it says:
>
>"--
>Amendment I
>
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, 
>or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 
>petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>--

>More practically, the First means Congress shall make no law about speech, 
>period. Or about the other things covered. Notice the word "or." This is 
>important.
>
>The First does not say "Congess shall make no law...abridging the freedom 
>of speech of individual persons when engaged in press activities or 
>political speech."
>
>It says what it says.
>
>The "rights of corporations," to use your phrasing, thus derive from the 
>specific prohibition placed on Congress (and thus on all states, through 
>their requirement to support and defend the Constitution as a condition of 
>joining the Union...and repeated in the 14 Amendment because some states 
>didn't think the words of the Constitution applied to their fiefdoms).

Funny thing about the 14th, the representatives of the Southern States (who 
had previously been sworn in and seated for the session) didn't get to vote 
on it.  They were ejected and the doors barred (the Senate even barred a 
New Jersey rep. who held the deciding vote and was strongly opposed to the 
measure).  They then reported that the majority (of those in the room) 
approved the measure, which was sent on to the states for ratification.  A 
similar travesty played out in the counting of ratifying states and 
reporting out the results.  When challenged in the Supreme Court the robed 
ones punted, saying it was a "political matter for Congress to 
decide".  Thus spake Tyranny.

Most all current federal authority rests on the 14th and the unwarranted 
expansion of the Commerce Clause (Wilkert v. Filburn) after FDR and 
Congress threatened to pack the bench with additional justices in order to 
pass unconstitutional New Deal legislation.

steve