House impeachment brief endangers freedom of speech - Con-gress feels they are above the law that they swore to defend
Posted by freedomforall 3 years, 2 months ago to Politics
"The brief filed by the House managers advocating the conviction and disqualification of citizen Donald Trump contains a frontal attack on freedom of speech for all Americans. It states categorically that “the First Amendment does not apply at all to impeachment proceedings,” despite the express language of that amendment prohibiting Congress from making any law, or presumably taking any other action, that abridges “the freedom of speech.”
The brief is based on a flawed reading of history and on a misunderstanding of the role of freedom of speech in governance. Its discussion of “free speech” begins with a sentence that reveals its fundamental error: “The First Amendment exists to promote our democratic system.”
This categorical statement surely would have surprised the Framers of the First Amendment, who believed in freedom of speech but not so much in democracy. The Framers of our constitutional system thought they were building a “republic,” with limited suffrage and many checks on “democracy.”
The Electoral College, as conceived by the Framers, was anything but democratic. State legislatures could select the electors without even allowing eligible voters to participate in the process. Moreover, only a small fraction of citizens and residents were eligible to vote — white, male, 21-year-old landowners — and even those were subject to varying disqualifications. The Senate back then was selected by state legislatures, not by democratic voting.
“It’s a republic, if you can keep it,” proclaimed Benjamin Franklin. And freedom of speech was essential to keeping it a republic, but not necessarily a democracy. Over the years, we have evolved into a democracy, with near universal suffrage, direct election of senators and voting for presidential electors, but we still would be guaranteed the protections of the First Amendment even if we had not adopted these attributes of democracy. So, no, the First Amendment does not exist only to “protect our democratic system.” It exists to protect our liberty, regardless of what system we choose.
If Americans were to vote to restore the British monarchy, as some Tories advocated both before and after the American Revolution, the First Amendment still would guarantee us the right to dissent. The First Amendment is not merely a means to securing a particular form of government; the freedom of speech it guarantees is an end unto itself — an independent good, under any system of governance."
The brief is based on a flawed reading of history and on a misunderstanding of the role of freedom of speech in governance. Its discussion of “free speech” begins with a sentence that reveals its fundamental error: “The First Amendment exists to promote our democratic system.”
This categorical statement surely would have surprised the Framers of the First Amendment, who believed in freedom of speech but not so much in democracy. The Framers of our constitutional system thought they were building a “republic,” with limited suffrage and many checks on “democracy.”
The Electoral College, as conceived by the Framers, was anything but democratic. State legislatures could select the electors without even allowing eligible voters to participate in the process. Moreover, only a small fraction of citizens and residents were eligible to vote — white, male, 21-year-old landowners — and even those were subject to varying disqualifications. The Senate back then was selected by state legislatures, not by democratic voting.
“It’s a republic, if you can keep it,” proclaimed Benjamin Franklin. And freedom of speech was essential to keeping it a republic, but not necessarily a democracy. Over the years, we have evolved into a democracy, with near universal suffrage, direct election of senators and voting for presidential electors, but we still would be guaranteed the protections of the First Amendment even if we had not adopted these attributes of democracy. So, no, the First Amendment does not exist only to “protect our democratic system.” It exists to protect our liberty, regardless of what system we choose.
If Americans were to vote to restore the British monarchy, as some Tories advocated both before and after the American Revolution, the First Amendment still would guarantee us the right to dissent. The First Amendment is not merely a means to securing a particular form of government; the freedom of speech it guarantees is an end unto itself — an independent good, under any system of governance."
I think Trump is right not to speak in person. But his legal team will have the floor.
Now this is a personal view- they should keep it short on the sham, the vote will not be influenced by argument, votes are already decided.
News, information and opinion can be shown in different ways, the legal team have a chance to reach an audience otherwise closed off by big tech and big media censorship. The big single issue (to my mind) is election fraud. The team should put in only the minimum effort to make a legal case, but should recognize the importance of getting the idea across that there was fraud. For this there are two main lines to take: that laws were broken, and the blatant destruction of evidence. The fact of destruction is something that a law court could put aside, but the court of public opinion can take it differently.
The potential of this approach is seen by Time,
time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election...
"a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together.."
This is to try to counter claims of fraud by saying yes there was a conspiracy but it was only fortify the election and not to rig it.
-see Delingpole in Breitbart:
breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/05/del...
I agree that the election fraud is still the most important argument to make, but, imo, unless it inspires the public to armed revolt with military support, nothing will be accomplished by trying to convince the public.
The audience that might be convinced and has the power to change the outcome of the election is the military. I have no idea if that is an achievable goal. From the evidence I have already seen, the military should have already stepped in to freeze the election counting and enforce the existing laws to assure a fair election. Are the heads of the military corrupt and willing to ignore their duty to the People? If not, is the evidence sufficient to convince the heads of the military that action is their duty? I think the evidence is sufficient to require action to investigate the election and to place the result on hold until the investigation is completed. I think the federal government civilians will not achieve a just result. They are irredeemably corrupt. The military has to see this and to act accordingly on the behalf of the People.
It appears that foreign governments have acted to manipulate the results of the 2020 elections and likely had assistance from conspirators in this country, including many judges. At this point, short of a civil war, I think that only the military has the duty and the power to correct the manipulation of the enemy (foreign and domestic) in the 2020 elections.