“First Amendment First,” we have taken to saying, in our CLC attempts to restore the constitution’s Bill of Rights. But while the Fourth and Fifth Amendment say, “No person shall…” the First says only, “Congress shall pass no law…” The Bill of Rights was of course intended to limit the national government, and is applied piecemeal to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, the states having to rely on their own constitutions for the rest of their Bill of Rights.
Does that mean then that the national executive can prohibit free speech? Well, surely not, because the executive has no powers domestically that are not the execution of a national law, and “Congress shall pass no law…”
But is the intimidation of the press (and every bloody blogger, we do add) not a violation of the presidential office to uphold the constitution? Is the answer not that in intimidating the press, the executive exceeds his executive authority, stepping outside the laws passed by congress to control speech? He would of course in doing so violate state laws and every state constitution, but it is an interesting theoretical question. Tyrants, of course, have a tendency to do such things. The alternative is of course that there is no free speech, and our whole enterprise collapses.
And of the religion clauses, may an executive then impose a religion upon the nation, so long as Congress has passed no law? Assembly and petition must of course go the way of the other four clauses, but it would be too dangerous to assemble and pointless to petition anyway.
First Amendment First: we intend to restore the Bill of Rights despite the internet. The purpose of government is “to secure these rights,” and where these are not secure, congress and the states can surely pass laws to prohibit the false advertising given free reign on the internet, not to mention the intimidation, trolling and death threats we have heard a Trumpster defend as free speech. That, incidentally, is how tyrants use the Bill of Rights: for their own advantage. But that is to legalize assault, and this is not acceptable despite the challenges to law of the Internet Age.
“No person shall…” is what the Fourth and Fifth Amendments say, and this whole Bill of Rights, believe it or not, does fit together. Congress in fact has an obligation to protect our liberty and our security in our houses, persons, papers and effects, otherwise known as privacy. Justice Black, I believe, called this, “The right to be left alone, a right most prized by all civilized man. James Otis called it, “A man’s home is his castle,” coming out of Sir Edmund Coke and British common law.
The FBI tried to use the spy-marketing system to protect us from ISIS, and some bright fellow who did not remember the Russians and the Cold War thought it would be cool to use Russian internet superiority to prevent terrorism. Now every living room in America is on spy-cam, audio, recorded, and more- things you cannot even imagine, like how ’bout MRI? Do you feel safer yet? Oh but its surely just for marketing purposes, and we can trust them, and have nothing to hide. Oops, we forgot about tyranny. Now the Russians can control elections the way companies manipulate the consumers as a body. Welcome to a Trump tyranny with no Fourth Amendment.
We need to sue these companies and make them stop, but first the thick Americans must be told why they care if these things are indeed occurring. Ole Jeff Fieger turned down a lawsuit from me- apparently it is just too much effort compared with suing the cities over bodily injuries when the taxpayers are paying and the judges campaigns are paid. He turned down trying to sue the manufacturers of and lobbyists for Oxy as well. Famous guy, that Jeff. Someone might, when they find they have enough money, stand up for America and the grandchildren that will inhabit our future, you know, when we’re gone and what is left is our legacy of liberty.