[EL] Cruz op-ed on proposed constitutional amendment

[Justin Levitt]

John mentions that "Press" as used in the First Amendment refers to a 
means of communication, not a particular industry.  Eugene Volokh's made 
the same point, and persuasively so.

But "press" as used in SJ Res 19 hasn't been construed yet, and we're 
not sure how "press" as used in a wholly-hypothetical 28th Amendment 
would be construed.  The sponsors seem to believe that it refers to an 
industry.  (The problems with defining the contours of said industry 
are, of course, legion.)  And it's a little hard to believe that courts 
would construe section 3 of an amendment to "undo" much of section 1 of 
that same amendment.

The broader point is that a new amendment yields new construction -- 
some of which may be consistent with past constructions of other 
portions of the constitution, some of which may not. Amending the 
document amends the document.

(FWIW, I'm not a fan of the new amendment either.  The "press" issue is 
just one reason.)

Justin

On 6/4/2014 2:32 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> Message from John White, who is having trouble posting:
>
> *From:*John White
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:39 PM
> *To:* 'law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>'
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] Cruz op-ed on proposed constitutional amendment
>
> It seems that section 3 undoes the rest of the proposed amendment at 
> the federal level.  "Press" as used in the First Amendment refers to a 
> means of communication, not a particular industry -- in much the same 
> way as it prohibits restriction on speech.
>
> However, the proposed amendment's limitation on abridging freedom of 
> the press is not extended to the states.
>
> 	
>
> *John J. White, Jr.*
>
> 425.822.9281 Ext. 7321
>
> Bio <http://livengoodlaw.com/person/john-j-white-jr/>| vCard 
> <http://livengoodlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/John-J.-White-Jr-Livengood-Alskog-Pllc.vcf>| 
> Address <http://livengoodlaw.com/contact-us/>| Website 
> <http://livengoodlaw.com/>
>
> white at livengoodlaw.com <mailto:white at livengoodlaw.com>**
>
> The contents of this message and any attachments may contain 
> confidential information and be protected by the attorney-client 
> privilege, work product doctrine or other applicable protection.  If 
> you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in 
> error, please notify the sender and promptly delete the message.  
> Thank you for your assistance.
>
> _Tax Advice Notice_: IRS Circular 230 requires us to advise you that, 
> if this communication or any attachment contains any tax advice, the 
> advice is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose 
> of avoiding federal tax penalties. A taxpayer may rely on professional 
> advice to avoid federal tax penalties only if the advice is reflected 
> in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent 
> requirements. Please contact us if you have any questions about 
> Circular 230 or would like to discuss our preparation of an opinion 
> that conforms to these IRS rules.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140604/032dcd6f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2928 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140604/032dcd6f/attachment.jpe>