Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: aristeides
KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part: I believe the statute before us is unconstitutional in virtually all of its particulars; it breaks faith with the fundamental principle—understood by our nation’s Founding Generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court—that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). My colleagues’ per curiam opinion and their other opinions ignore the statute’s transparent infirmity and leave standing its most pernicious provisions, apparently on the ground that candidatefocused political speech inevitably “corrupts” the individuals to whom it refers. Their reasoning and conclusions treat a First Amendment with which I am not familiar.
164 posted on 05/02/2003 1:55:57 PM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]


To: Petronski
The First Amendment says Congress shall make NO laws. In my opinion the entire statute IS on its face unconstitutional. I'm not sure about the other jurists' reasoning and conclusions either. Its plain as mud they aren't reading the same Constitution the rest of us are.
167 posted on 05/02/2003 1:58:01 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson