10 ms·

First Amendment to the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; o

First Amendment to the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Can someone please show me the asterisk that says "unless done to protect national security"?

dangrossman 14y ago
It doesn't, which is why the confidentiality clause of NSLs was ruled unconstitutional. That's the case this article is talking about from the first sentence.
- crusso 14y ago
  If there were any justice in our system, lawmakers who put that confidentiality clause in there could be sued for dereliction of duty and/or negligence. The same goes for Bush for not vetoing it and thus breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution. It's one thing for lawmakers to get tripped up on finer points of Constitutional law with which the Supreme Court disagrees with. It's quite another to just play this "catch me if you can" game trying to push the limits of what is possible while ignoring the Bill of Rights.
mindslight 14y ago
The runtime has been thoroughly compromised. Use in new software is not recommended.
tikhonj 14y ago
That's a bit of a red herring because virtually everyone (including the courts) agrees there should be some limits to free speech: copyright, trademarks, fraud, consumer protection, libel/slander, obscenity and more that I'm forgetting. So the real question (whether NSLs should be allowed) is quite a bit more nuanced. I don't think they should, but not really on the basis of free speech.
- crusso 14y ago
  While there are limits in the first amendment, its primary purpose is to allow individual citizens to speak out against the tyranny of government. So while you can quibble over yelling "fire" in a theater, silencing speech against prosecution from the government is diametrically opposed to the intent of the first amendment.
  - misnome 14y ago
    > While there are limits in the first amendment, its primary purpose is to allow individual citizens to speak out against the tyranny of government. Then, I think someone forgot to tell the government that.
    - carbocation 14y ago
      Not sure if you're kidding, cynical, or serious. The entire framework of the US government's core documents and the non-legal documents written by the founders around the same time completely support the notion that these documents have purposes, chief among which is the defense of citizens from the government itself.
      - nightpool 14y ago
        Not the original poster, but I think his comment was meant to be interpreted as "Somebody should remind our current government of its original vision"
  - AnIrishDuck 14y ago
    > you can quibble over yelling "fire" in a theater FYI, even this argument has been rejected for decades. Now, your speech must be likely to cause "imminent lawless action". [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
    - gamblor956 14y ago
anigbrowl 14y ago
There's a whole body of Supreme Court jurisprudence about the scope and interpretation of the Constitution. I'll limit myself to saying that its component parts don't exist in isolation from each other, and that a variety of tensions exist between different parts of the Constitution that can be construed as being somewhat contradictory.
DanielBMarkham 14y ago
I upvoted and completely agree with you, now let me play devil's advocate a bit. :) The constitution is not a suicide pact. That is, the system cannot interpret the various provisions of the constitution in such a way that would destroy the country. The Declaration of Independence is a statement of philosophy. The constitution is a rather vague and self-contradictory description of structure. Different thing entirely. Having said that, what has happened is that 240 years has given all the players in government a chance to find edge cases where they can have their way at the expense of others. What we're seeing now is a state of perpetual war. This was never envisioned when the country was founded. So we're way off the script.
- atondwal 14y ago
  >The constitution is not a suicide pact. Isn't it? It seems like it was intended to be a set of fully strict provisions, and if they didn't work, everyone had to agree on changing it.
- abraxasz 14y ago
  What I find interesting (not judging here) is that people's attitude toward the immutability of the constitution seems to be inconsistent. The same people who invoke the 2 amendment to block any discussion on gun control are willing to "reinterpret" the 1st amendment if it fits their purpose. Note: My point is not at all about gun control, it's just the first example of inconsistency that I had in mind. Not starting any debate here.
  - kbolino 14y ago
    There are plenty of people who strongly support both the First and Second Amendments, not to mention the whole rest of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.
- moron4hire 14y ago
  Counter: The Constitution is a suicide pact. The notion that individual rights are more important than Government is a pretty clear thread though out the document, and that one should not conflate the Government of the particular day with The Nation as a whole. I think it's pretty clear with even a cursory reading of such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution that the standing belief was that Government should be destroyed and rebuilt if it ever stopped serving the people. Such as when it falls into a perpetual state of war. Like they complained about England doing. I think it was well envisioned and it's well on script. However, the Founders believed the separation of powers between branches would create adequate checks and balances to prevent it from happening. I think they failed to envision the case where said branches would collude and ignore the rules to protect each other's power quid pro quo, and most people would not notice and not be bothered.
ataggart 14y ago
The law means whatever judges say it means. http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
SilasX 14y ago
I'm not advocating this position, but the best answer to your question would be something like, "The tradition of legal history and interpretation that holds that 'the Constitution is not a suicide pact' and so that anything implying the termination of the United States as a government that can secure those rights generally gets leeway" (though of course the government routinely exaggerates the extent of all these supposed threats).
smackfu 14y ago
Well, the pretty simple asterisk is that it says "Congress" and the Secret Service is in the Executive branch.
jrochkind1 14y ago
I'm not sure why y'all are so interested in talking about the first ammendment with regard to the OP... what's it got to do with the first ammendment? A lot more about the fourth ammendment -- unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be "secure in your papers and effects" -- the one that says they need a warrant and ordinarily need to let you know the warrant was served). Don't it?
- jmaygarden 14y ago
  The requirement that most recipients of an NSL are not permitted to disclose that information is a matter of the first amendment.
Spooky23 14y ago
What does this have to do with free speech? You have the right to say anything you want, and deal with the consequences of that speech.
flyinRyan 14y ago
Aside from political chest thumping, no one has cared about the constitution or what it says for quite some time (well, parts of the judicial system care somewhat, when they're consulted and bother to respond). Laws and rules are for subjects. The mega rich and powerful need not concern themselves with it and as far as I can tell it's almost certainly been that way since the founding of the US.
cafard 14y ago
Shouldn't this be the Fourth Amendment? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

dangrossman 14y ago

It doesn't, which is why the confidentiality clause of NSLs was ruled unconstitutional. That's the case this article is talking about from the first sentence.

crusso 14y ago
If there were any justice in our system, lawmakers who put that confidentiality clause in there could be sued for dereliction of duty and/or negligence. The same goes for Bush for not vetoing it and thus breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution. It's one thing for lawmakers to get tripped up on finer points of Constitutional law with which the Supreme Court disagrees with. It's quite another to just play this "catch me if you can" game trying to push the limits of what is possible while ignoring the Bill of Rights.

mindslight 14y ago

The runtime has been thoroughly compromised. Use in new software is not recommended.

tikhonj 14y ago

That's a bit of a red herring because virtually everyone (including the courts) agrees there should be some limits to free speech: copyright, trademarks, fraud, consumer protection, libel/slander, obscenity and more that I'm forgetting. So the real question (whether NSLs should be allowed) is quite a bit more nuanced. I don't think they should, but not really on the basis of free speech.

crusso 14y ago
While there are limits in the first amendment, its primary purpose is to allow individual citizens to speak out against the tyranny of government. So while you can quibble over yelling "fire" in a theater, silencing speech against prosecution from the government is diametrically opposed to the intent of the first amendment.
- misnome 14y ago
  > While there are limits in the first amendment, its primary purpose is to allow individual citizens to speak out against the tyranny of government. Then, I think someone forgot to tell the government that.
  - carbocation 14y ago
    Not sure if you're kidding, cynical, or serious. The entire framework of the US government's core documents and the non-legal documents written by the founders around the same time completely support the notion that these documents have purposes, chief among which is the defense of citizens from the government itself.
    - nightpool 14y ago
      Not the original poster, but I think his comment was meant to be interpreted as "Somebody should remind our current government of its original vision"
- AnIrishDuck 14y ago
  > you can quibble over yelling "fire" in a theater FYI, even this argument has been rejected for decades. Now, your speech must be likely to cause "imminent lawless action". [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
  - gamblor956 14y ago

anigbrowl 14y ago

There's a whole body of Supreme Court jurisprudence about the scope and interpretation of the Constitution. I'll limit myself to saying that its component parts don't exist in isolation from each other, and that a variety of tensions exist between different parts of the Constitution that can be construed as being somewhat contradictory.

DanielBMarkham 14y ago

I upvoted and completely agree with you, now let me play devil's advocate a bit. :) The constitution is not a suicide pact. That is, the system cannot interpret the various provisions of the constitution in such a way that would destroy the country. The Declaration of Independence is a statement of philosophy. The constitution is a rather vague and self-contradictory description of structure. Different thing entirely. Having said that, what has happened is that 240 years has given all the players in government a chance to find edge cases where they can have their way at the expense of others. What we're seeing now is a state of perpetual war. This was never envisioned when the country was founded. So we're way off the script.

atondwal 14y ago
>The constitution is not a suicide pact. Isn't it? It seems like it was intended to be a set of fully strict provisions, and if they didn't work, everyone had to agree on changing it.
abraxasz 14y ago
What I find interesting (not judging here) is that people's attitude toward the immutability of the constitution seems to be inconsistent. The same people who invoke the 2 amendment to block any discussion on gun control are willing to "reinterpret" the 1st amendment if it fits their purpose. Note: My point is not at all about gun control, it's just the first example of inconsistency that I had in mind. Not starting any debate here.
- kbolino 14y ago
  There are plenty of people who strongly support both the First and Second Amendments, not to mention the whole rest of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.
moron4hire 14y ago
Counter: The Constitution is a suicide pact. The notion that individual rights are more important than Government is a pretty clear thread though out the document, and that one should not conflate the Government of the particular day with The Nation as a whole. I think it's pretty clear with even a cursory reading of such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution that the standing belief was that Government should be destroyed and rebuilt if it ever stopped serving the people. Such as when it falls into a perpetual state of war. Like they complained about England doing. I think it was well envisioned and it's well on script. However, the Founders believed the separation of powers between branches would create adequate checks and balances to prevent it from happening. I think they failed to envision the case where said branches would collude and ignore the rules to protect each other's power quid pro quo, and most people would not notice and not be bothered.

ataggart 14y ago

The law means whatever judges say it means. http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

SilasX 14y ago

I'm not advocating this position, but the best answer to your question would be something like, "The tradition of legal history and interpretation that holds that 'the Constitution is not a suicide pact' and so that anything implying the termination of the United States as a government that can secure those rights generally gets leeway" (though of course the government routinely exaggerates the extent of all these supposed threats).

smackfu 14y ago

Well, the pretty simple asterisk is that it says "Congress" and the Secret Service is in the Executive branch.

jrochkind1 14y ago

I'm not sure why y'all are so interested in talking about the first ammendment with regard to the OP... what's it got to do with the first ammendment? A lot more about the fourth ammendment -- unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be "secure in your papers and effects" -- the one that says they need a warrant and ordinarily need to let you know the warrant was served). Don't it?

jmaygarden 14y ago
The requirement that most recipients of an NSL are not permitted to disclose that information is a matter of the first amendment.

Spooky23 14y ago

What does this have to do with free speech? You have the right to say anything you want, and deal with the consequences of that speech.

flyinRyan 14y ago

Aside from political chest thumping, no one has cared about the constitution or what it says for quite some time (well, parts of the judicial system care somewhat, when they're consulted and bother to respond). Laws and rules are for subjects. The mega rich and powerful need not concern themselves with it and as far as I can tell it's almost certainly been that way since the founding of the US.

cafard 14y ago

Shouldn't this be the Fourth Amendment? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]