Replies

And then?

The media state declares war.

. . . which I why, IMHO, Trump’s lawsuits must include challenges to the Warren Court’s infamous New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision.
Sullivan was unanimous in 1964, but it was based on a novel
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
reading of the Bill of Rights. Prior to 1964 no court had ever held that 1A affected libel law - for the simple reason that (asbestos suit ON) the first eight amendments “enumerate” - but do not create or modify - rights.
The unamended Constitution was a huge goal which consumed the Federalists. They had no interest in arousing any controversy at all over rights. Instead they wanted it to be taken for granted that rights - which were in being due to adherence to Common Law - would be respected in federal as well as state courts. And that is the burden of
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The first eight amendments are in that sense window dressing - statements of Common Law rights which had historically been denied by tyrants.
Sullivan makes libel suits by officials and judges impractical, essentially impossible. But an amendment which facially compromised the restriction against violation of the Ninth Commandment
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exod 20: 16
would have been controversial.
The effect of defanging libel protection of officials is to enable “the media” - already unified by the wire services - to indulge itself in anti-society propaganda. Bad news is journalism’s bread and butter, and a fixation on bad news becomes cynicism towards society. Any political party can choose to align itself with journalism’s inherent slant - and that is precisely what the Democrat Party has done.
Reestablish the standard of truth as the defense against libel suits - and watch the propagandists pull back their lies.

The argument you put forth is thorough and cogent. I am a huge fan of the disrespected and thoroughly emasculated 9th and 10th amendments.

But.

The evil arrayed against us is ubiquitous and nearly omnipotent: education, media and government including the courts.

You assume that if Trump can place this argument before a Federal judge they will be reasonable and he will prevail. This is akin to Charlie Brown thinking that Lucy will hold the football when he tries to kick it.