So, is it your premise that all laws are unconstitutional if you say so ?
That being said I will go with the plain language that is crystal clear that this is unconstitutional. GW basically admitted as much when he signed it.
No he didn't.
No actually it is my premise that the constitutionality is determined by examining the plain meanings of the words. If we cannot agree what those words mean than no constitutional provision has any meaning whatsoever. Based on the word "abridge" these provisions are objectively in violation of the meaning. That sure as hell beats defining constitutionality by the current whims of the supreme court.
As far as GW I will paraphrase "Despite my concerns about the constitutionality about some of the provisions of this law I am signing it because I think it is a good thing"
That is a politicians admission if there ever was one however in this case I am applying interpretation which is much more justified when deciphering political speak than it is in determining the meaning of the first amendment.