Justice Buchwald subverts legislative intent of First Amendment. That’s what is obnoxious.
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 and dictate rules by which We the People communicate.
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 subverting the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, were adopted.
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 fact 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, 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!
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
