>Congress shall make no law . . .
>Congress shall make no . . .
>Congress shall make . . .
>Congress shall . . .
>Congress . . .
>Congress
The president isn't Congress. Trump can shut down whatever the fuck he needs to to protect the safety and security of the United States of America.
Other urls found in this thread:
fundsforlearning.com
archive.is
twitter.com
He could start by giving us free speech to begin with
>President makes laws
He chooses who heads the FCC, and he can write executive orders.
He can't read. The Constitution means nothing to this idiot!
How does the First Amendment apply to the president?
Holy fuck is this the first time you've read the Constitution?
He can't stop people from kneeling if they want to.
Freedom of expression. Whether you like it or not.
First amendment.
What is the first word of the First Amendment?
Apparently you haven't ever read it at all.
Revoked if appropriate... there are procedures and guidelines for revocation so looking into that is a legitimate use of government power. Further, the FCC is controlled and appointments made by Congress, so Trump doesn't have authority there anyway. Learn Civics before you come here.
Do you understand the first amendment? OMG
No wonder this country is going to shit! Go google it.
What is the first word of the First Amendment? You can spell it out slowly if you need to.
>President Trump has appointed Ajit Pai to serve as Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
fundsforlearning.com
The president appoints the FCC chair, and I assume he can appoint another whenever he likes if the current one doesn't shut down CNN.
Congress makes laws you inbred. The president's EO's only enforce laws on the books.
The President does not get to make any laws. Executive Orders are not laws. They are instructions to agents and officers of executive branch.
Even if the President could write laws, he could not write any law in violation of the Constitution, nor can any other legal authority within the United States.
What is case law? This is a common law country precisely to stop stupid arguments like that.
>thinking the FCC can shut down companies
So in what way does the First Amendment apply to the president?
He doesn't have to make a law. He can just make an executive order canceling any law that allows CNN to broadcast.
That would not be unconstitutional, because the Constitution says nowhere that the president has to preserve the right to free press. It only says the Congress has to. The president is not Congress.
>executive order canceling any law
Only laws and lawful orders of the court can cancel a law. The President gets to veto proposed law, but he has no power to undo existing laws.
The President can choose to order the executive branch to not enforce laws, but he can also be compelled by court order to enforce a law he is attempting to non-enforce.
This is really basic civics stuff, user. If you aren't a high schooler or a recent immigrant or a dreamer, you are probably on the path to becoming a sovereign citizen.
The President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. He's doing a terrible job at it.
Mfw this thread is legit supporting the president shutting down anything in the name of "security and safety" which is subjective.
For example, Obama could see Christian bakers as a threat to the safety of americas citizens.
Not old enough to remember the early 2000's? These kinds of arguments were really common during the peak of the 9/11 hysteria.
The president can also specify how the law will be enforced, such as by revoking licenses for certain broadcasters. Executive orders actually allow the president a lot of power if written correctly. He can shut down any news organization he likes, and the Constitution has nothing to say about it.
I'm not supporting anything one way or the other. I'm simply pointing out that the First Amendment does not apply to the president. Lots of people seem to be missing that fact.
The Constitution does not say anything about what the president can do with respect to the press, so if he shuts down the press, it is not unconstitutional.
>For example, Obama could see Christian bakers as a threat to the safety of americas citizens.
No he couldn't, he isn't the president. Stop thinking in hypotheticals and try to win.
Maybe you missed all the lawsuits against the President filed this year over allegedly unconstitutional and illegal executive orders?
You are also ignoring due process. The government can't revoke anyone's rights or privileges unless the law specifically allows it, the process called for in law has been followed, and an order of the court has been sign.
We are not fucking Turkey. Checks and balances, motherfucker.
Of course there are checks and balances, and of course if Trump wrote an executive order blocking CNN's ability to broadcast, they could sue, and it might go to the Supreme Court.
However, it's still a fact that the First Amendment says very clearly that the Congress cannot do such and such. It does not say anything about what the president can and cannot do.
So if a case of CNN v. Trump goes to the Supreme Court, they will have to argue on a basis other than 1st Amendment, because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the president.
prez doesnt make law, congress does. you are retarded.
>the First Amendment says very clearly that the Congress cannot do such and such. It does not say anything about what the president
Listen user, I'm a paralegal. I work with the Federal government directly five days a week. Believe that I know maybe just a little bit more about how the law gets interpreted here.
Do you know what "case law" means? It refers to the way laws have been interpreted in verdicts. We have a common law system and that is how it works.
It's not just what's written there on the piece of paper, it's how those vaguely and broadly worded sentences have been interpreted by judges as they apply in specific cases and the reasons those judges gave for their rulings.
It probably won't surprise you to learn that this sort of thing has come up before. You're not the first guy to think there's a big loophole in the Constitution allowing the big guy in the oval office to turn this country into a dictatorship until the Supreme Court gets around to hearing the lawsuit and saying, "How about no, fuck you?"
The President does not get to do whatever he wants. I would love to see Trump smack CNN around, but he can't. He could try, but the moment he did CNN's lawyers would electronically file a complaint in Federal court and as soon as the judge received it, a preliminary stay would be ordered halting the execution of the order pending trial.
The rule of law is a good thing.
I see, so there is case law where the word "Congress" is used to mean "President" and so these concepts are no longer distinguishable in common law, and so when the Constitution says "Congress" it just as equally means "President," not only in the First Amendment, but throughout the Constitution?
There is case law that the President's Executive Orders do not constitute laws and that no Federal body except Congress has the authority enact anything with the force of law.
So yes, but in legalese.
Are you really suggesting the president should decide which news outlets can and can't operate? Because you're setting a truly awful precedent for the next Obama or Hillary.
Executive orders allow the president to specify how a law will be enforced, so such an order can specify that the law that allows broadcast companies to have a license will not extent to CNN, and so they must either stop broadcasting, or if they continue, they will do so without a license, which will be illegal.
None of this will violate the Constitution because the Constitution does not say anything about what the president can do with regard to the press. The First Amendment only limits Congress.
I'm simply saying that the First Amendment is irrelevant to the issue. Many people seem to miss this because they are saying that Trump is violating the First Amendment. He's not. The First Amendment has nothing to do with him. It only applies to Congress, and he's not Congress.
Y'all are forgetting that Lincoln was essentially able to stop the press from printing bad stories about him.
You missed the part in the Constitution where it says laws can not be written against any particular individual or entity.
It would be a lot easier for Trump to shut down the broadcast of all cable news stations than it would be for him to shut down CNN.
FYI, the US Code also limits the Presidents powers. The law has to authorize the revokation of a broadcast license and while there are such provisions, none of them say anything remotely resembling "the President is mad at fake news."
War time. All three branches have always strongly agreed that limitations on the government, including Constitutional limitations, are more easily waived during war time. There's yuge case law on this, going back the 18th Century.
It would be a piece of cake to write the EO around this, simply by specifying that the revocation of license applies to any entity whom the president finds is a threat to the national security or well-being of the republic. The EO would then be applied equally to all persons and organizations, and those found to be a threat would have their license revoked.
That's really going to wow the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, user. They won't immediately impose a stay on that. It's foolproof. Not one fool can see a problem with it.
President does NOT mean King, Emperor, or Ruler.
You fucking millenials smoke too much weed!
There's no way OP is a millenial. He's either Gen X or Gen Zyklon, probably the latter.
Then Trump will appeal it to the Supreme Court, which could go either way on it.
I read Supreme Court opinions for fun, user. They're not going to buy the idea that cable news constitute a national security threat, much less that only CNN poses a national security threat after the President had a bunch of very public feuds with them on Twitter.
If they report things like "Trump says he is going to double America's nuclear stockpile," that might indeed constitute a threat to America by leading to an arms race.
Jesus fuck Trump. Free speech is what got you in office.
...
So he can ban guns?
Oh, and it was a tenfold increase in our nuclear stockpile that Trump was reported to have requested.
>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment does not qualify its proclamation by limiting it to any particular body that cannot infringe the right, so it would seem to apply to Congress, the president, the Courts, etc.
On the other hand, the First Amendment specifically refers to Congress and what it shall not do.
The founding fathers could have never envisioned tv, the internet, blogs. Thinking freedom of press extends to assault blogging in 2017 is only for rural retards who voted drumpfz.
Expression of religion exclusively.
Tel A Div: "my nigga football is my religion"
Good luck, bud.
He's just talking about revoking some silly FCC broadcast licenses that fake news organizations have, he's not stopping anybody from speaking.
Just broadcasting lies knowingly to the public.
Revocation of cnns press pass simply means no more special access. They can stand outside the fence during rose garden briefings. Theyre free thereafter to upload their videos to youtube and be viewed as desired.