Subject: [EL] Speech v. press (was: Floyd Abrams & Citizens United)
From: Jon Roland
Date: 10/4/2010, 9:24 AM
To: "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Reply-to:
"jon.roland@constitution.org"

The best interpretation of the original meaning of "speech" and "press" is that "speech" is the creation of an informative message and "press" the dissemination of such a message, by whatever means anyone or anything may choose. The First Amendment therefore says that Congress shall not in any way restrict the production or propagation of communications. It is reinforced by the absence of any delegation of powers to do most of the things that raise the issue. By the common law rules of construction, powers are to be strictly construed, and if there is any doubt whether an official has a power, the presumption must be that he does not.

Citizens United was correctly decided not just because the First Amendment forbade such a statute, but because there is no authority to adopt such a statute even if there were no First Amendment. It makes no difference what kind of thing is doing the communicating. The same principle applies to anything, whether it be a human individual, a corporation, an animal, a space alien, or the fungal and algal components of a lichen communicating chemically to symbiose. "No law" means no law. Period. The prohibition is absolute and has no exceptions. If you think that impractically severe, amend the Constitution.
-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322              Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001                   jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------