4 ms·
Rumsfeld vs FAIR was a spending clause case, so there was an additional level of indirection vs the Texas law. In addition it involved Congress’ power to raise
by bradleyjg 4y ago
Rumsfeld vs FAIR was a spending clause case, so there was an additional level of indirection vs the Texas law. In addition it involved Congress’ power to raise and support armies which have always been given a great deal of deference. It’s not really on point.
- torstenvl 4y agoThe Supreme Court's published syllabus explains the holding as follows: "Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the ... access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds." (emphasis added). Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 547 U.S. 47 (2006).* I'm not sure where you're getting the argument that this is inapplicable, but it sounds like some of the talking points coming from the Internet outrage machine (e.g., the OP). I strongly encourage you to read the primary sources. * This is the correct citation. The one I entered yesterday is no longer editable but refers to the Third Circuit case preceding the Supreme Court case; switching tabs on my phone is a little harder to keep track of than on my computer, and I apologize.
- bradleyjg 4y agoShouldn’t you take your own advice and read past the headnote? Believe it or not you aren’t the first person on the internet that went to law school. Granted most of us have come to regret it …
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- torstenvl 4y agoI've read the decision at length. If you had done so as well, you would see that this line in the syllabus comes verbatim from the majority opinion. 547 U.S. at 60. I cited the syllabus because it occurs first and has less pagination markup, making it more accessible to the average HN reader.