Nearly 150 Constitutional Scholars Reject Trump's Defense: 1st Amendment Does Not Apply...

[babylonsister]

Nearly 150 Constitutional Scholars Reject Trump’s Defense: ‘The First Amendment Does Not Apply in Impeachment Proceedings’
Colin KalmbacherFeb 5th, 2021, 5:43 pm


Former president Donald Trump has no First Amendment defense in his upcoming U.S. Senate impeachment trial, according to nearly 150 constitutional scholars.

In an open letter released Friday, dozens of law professors and First Amendment litigators sought to disabuse the 45th president and his defense team of the suggestion that the First Amendment even applies to his case soon to come before the upper chamber.

“The First Amendment is no bar to the Senate convicting former president Trump and disqualifying him from holding future office,” the letter reads, before explaining that the authors have numerous legal and political differences but are nonetheless united in their understanding of the law on this point. “The First Amendment does not apply in impeachment proceedings, so it cannot provide a defense for president Trump.”

On Tuesday, Trump filed his official response to the Democrats’ impeachment brief, outlining a planned First Amendment defense.

“Like all Americans, the 45th president is protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, he believes, and therefore avers, that the United States is unique on Earth in that its governing documents, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, specifically and intentionally protect unpopular speech from government retaliation,” the filing noted. “If the First Amendment protected only speech the government deemed popular in current American culture, it would be no protection at all.”

more...

https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/nearly-150-constitutional-scholars-reject-trumps-legal-defense-the-first-amendment-does-not-apply-in-impeachment-proceedings/

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Even if the First Amendment applied, it wouldn't at the same time.

The USSC has recognized EXCEPTIONS to the general rule of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Examples include there is no free speech right to shout "FIRE!" in a theatre -- or in this case, inciting a riot.

[unblock]

3. Makes sense; Donnie defended kaepernick's 1st amendment rights and said he shouldn't be fired

or maybe I'm misremembering that whole thing....

[kurtcagle]

4. Nope

The 1st Amendment basically protects an individual from retaliation for statements made that were critical of the government - if a person says "The government is corrupt" the government cannot arrest or imprison him on the basis of that statement. Trump, as president, was the leading representative OF the government at the time that he called for sedition AGAINST the government. Sedition is also clearly defined in the US Code as the process of taking violent action against the federal government with the intent of overthrowing that government, including the planning and incitement thereof (which also implicates him through conspiracy charges to commit a crime). You have the right to criticize the government. You do not have the right to unlawfully attempt to overthrow that government.

Now if that only could be applied to Fox News.

[crickets]

5. K&R for visibility.