Magnificent ruling from Judge W.G. Young, U.S. District Court, Massachusetts. It begins with a note that was delivered to the judge:
And continues:
Proposed by Congress in 1789, and ratified in 1791, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States — its words carved in New Hampshire granite on the exterior of the very courthouse in which this Court sits — provides:
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.
U.S. Const. amend. I.
On January 20, 2025, the first day of President Donald Trump’s second term in office, he promulgated 26 Executive Orders. Executive Order 14149, entitled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship”, ostensibly issued to reverse conduct of his predecessor, barred federal officials from “any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” Id. at § 2(b). President Trump here makes clear that, in his view, the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech applies to American citizens alone, and to an unconstitutionally narrow view of citizenship at that.
This case — perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court — squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally “yes, they do.” “No law” means “no law.” The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence. See Section III.A infra. No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.
Amen.
1 comment:
Constitutional law interpretations routinely drive me up a wall.
"Congress shall make no law... ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
To abridge, in legal terminology, is to curtail a right or privilege. To curtail is to reduce in extent or quantity; to impose a restriction on.
"No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike."
I'm sorry, but from a purely definitional standpoint, how in the world is a law that imposes limits on freedom of speech NOT a law that abridges, or curtails, freedom of speech? It's such a glaring logical contradiction.
Now, I'm not arguing against limits on free speech. I firmly believe that there should be limits (as well as that they should apply equally to everyone). But that's simply NOT what the Constitution lays out. I get so infuriated and dumbfounded by seeing these clearly very knowledgable and intelligent lawyers and judges who go to such great lengths to spell out the actual letter of the Constitution's law... only to then ignore the obvious contradictions of their interpretations of said actual letter!
~~~
You run into a similar problem with the Second Amendment to a certain degree, but it's actually LESS problematic there, for several reasons.
1] The Second Amendment has an innate condition for it to apply: the condition of "a well regulated Militia" "being necessary to the security of a free State". It logically follows that if such a militia is found NOT necessary to the security of a free state, then everything which follows after does not apply.
2] The Second Amendment does not prohibit the abridgement of the right to bear arms... it prohibits the infringement of said right. Infringement is ultimately a term of contract law, and refers to taking actions which are a breach of agreement or a violation of terms. Prohibition of infringement is then merely a requirement that the government abide by the terms of whatever agreements and terms actually constitute the right to bear arms.
3] The Second Amendment does not define, at all, what "the right to bear arms" means, or what the terms or agreements involved are. Rather, it treats said right as pre-existing and established elsewhere, in a separate context. Given the Common Law basis of the American legal system, and given that said Common Law is derived directly from English Common Law of the time, one may presume that "the right to bear arms" matches, in structure, whatever right British subjects had in that regard at the time, and inherits all the conditions, limitations, etc, thereof.
~~~
Now, again - I am not advocating for a complete rejection of limits on either free speech or on the right to bear arms. Quite the opposite - I want very firm, clear limits which make sense for the modern day.
What I am noting is that, unfortunately, the Constitution is simply badly written, and the actual text constructs an unworkable situation in which, by the letter of the law, the government is not permitted to limit these rights in the ways that they long have been (for obvious, unavoidable reasons) limited.
This is the chief issue with our Constitution - it is entirely too broad with its wording, along with being extremely vague in definitions, and relying far too much on precedents and interpretations. Virtually no one else on the face of the planet attempts to operate a government in this unworkable manner - they recognize the obvious and crippling flaws, and instead utilize Civil Law and clear codification through precise language and formal definitions.
Post a Comment