CDZ Justice Buchwald subverts legislative intent of First Amendment-twitter case

johnwk

Gold Member
May 24, 2009
4,047
1,939
200
For the text of the absurd ruling see: KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY vs DONALD J. TRUMP



This Fifth Column judge, NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, rests here opinion on the “public forum” doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court, which in itself is an invention of the Court unknown to our founders --- an invention not in harmony with the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, was adopted. In fact, the First Amendment, along with nine other Amendments, were intentionally adopted to preclude and forbid federal force to be used to meddle in America’s free market system nor dictate rules by which We the People communicate.


Now, with regard to the “Bill of Rights”, which includes the First Amendment, we find the founders expressed intentions in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789


THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .


And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:


“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution


Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:



“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
__ Federalist Paper No. 45


The bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the people’s affairs, including how they communicate with each other. In fact, they (the First Ten Amendments) were never intended to allow Fifth Column judges and Justices to interpret their meaning in a manner allowing them to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law!


This freaken judge needs to be punished for imposing her will as the rule of law and ignoring the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, were adopted.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
 
This nitwit judge, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is alleging the First Amendment forbids President Trump to block critics on his personal Twitter account. Keep in mind the complainants in the case did not assert being blocked on any official government accounts, e.g., @WhiteHouse. The account in question has been in use by Trump several years before running for president, and lately is used by Trump to call out Fake News, Russia-gate, and comment on other political issues of the day. It is not used for official government purposes as is, e.g., @POTUS is used for official government business.


As pointed out in an article titled: Is It Really Illegal for Trump to Block People on Twitter Now?


”The judge's logic turns the traditional way of viewing the First Amendment on its head: Your right to free speech doesn't extend to a right to make someone else, even a politician you have good reason to loathe, listen to you. The Supreme Court expanded on this in a 1984 case, ruling that a "person's right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others."


In this case, MINNESOTA BD. FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES v. KNIGHT, (1984), JUSTICE O'CONNOR wrote:


” Appellees have no constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views. They have no such right as members of the public, as government employees, or as instructors in an institution of higher education.
I​


The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy. In Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915), this Court rejected a claim to such a right founded on the Due Process [465 U.S. 271, 284] Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “



In the instant case the complainants are free to setup a Twitter account and complain all they want about President Trump and likewise free to block opposing points of view, and our Constitution prohibits interfering with this fundamental right ___ a right which even extends to President Trump, as much as he is hated by our nitwit “Never Trump Crowd”.


U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald needs to take her dog-and-pony show elsewhere, perhaps to Cuba or Venezuela where dictators will embrace her with open arms.



JWK





Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

 

Forum List

Back
Top