Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
In article <utmroa$3n3jl$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>If you're an originalist, there isn't. But the court only uses strict interpretation when it's useful to them.
wrote:
On 3/22/24 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:17:05 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/21/24 7:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article
<17bee95657459db9$30487$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:Just yes. Effa now denies there's such a thing as Judicial Review. I>>>Seems you're now arguing for freedom of the press, as if anyone inEffa disputed it: "Or try publishing National Defense secrets..."
this dialogue has ever disputed it.
Not many Usenet points for that...Points restored.
Thanny isn't a journalist.
Don't need to be. I'm still protected under the 1st Amendment. Nowhere does
the 1st Amendment limit press protection to only people who work for big
legacy corporations. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that citizen
media-- bloggers, YouTubers, individual citizens commenting on websites--
all fall under the 1st Amendment's press protections.
>The Espionage Act>
National defense information in general is protected by the Espionage
Act,21 18 U.S.C. зз 793н 798
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
>
Any elements of the Act that conflict with the Supreme Court's decision in
NY Times v U.S. are superseded by it.
>
That's how this shit works. You know, the Supreme Court decides whether
statutes or parts of statutes are constitutional or not. This is something
grade schoolers know but our resident amateur historian apparently needs
explained to him.
Just no.
guess Marbury vs Madison was a recipe for oatmeal or something.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.