Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Oct 12, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: I live in Wisconsin. There has been an anti-mask group on Facebook that has been a good resource for posting and messaging about mask mandates etc etc etc. Overnite, Facebook deleted the entire Group, which had at last count over 50,000 active members. I suspect for political reasons. There was nothing on there that was objectionable at all. Mainly business owners and individuals standing up for their rights. Just DELETED THE ENTIRE GROUP OVERNITE. I attempted to contact the White House on there link to share Social Media Censorship but its no longer taking new cases. This is the worst censorship I ve ever seen in my life, that I m aware of. Blatant political move. Gotta shut down this company for these types of abuses.

MM

REPLY: I believe it is wrong to allow private censorship. There was a recent case,  MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. ET AL. v. HALLECK ET AL, where the Supreme Court has ruled that a nonprofit running public access channel wasn’t bound by governmental constraints on speech. The First Amendment expressly states that “Congress shall make no law” that would prohibit free speech. This has been viewed as not applying to non-government entities.

In a court decision that was a split 5–4 ruling, concerned a Manhattan-based nonprofit tasked by New York City with operating public access channels in the area. The organization disciplined two producers after a film led to complaints, which the producers argued was a violation of their First Amendment speech rights. The case turned on whether the nonprofit was a “state actor” running a platform governed by First Amendment constraints.

In a decision was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which ruled that the First Amendment constraints didn’t apply to the nonprofit, which they considered a private entity. Providing a forum for the speech wasn’t enough to become a government actor, the justices ruled. This has emboldened the social media platforms to restrict political speech to whatever they ascribe to. The government cannot act in that manner.

Social Media was never discussed in this decision. The idea that the decision could be used to penalize social media companies was raised by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The groups argued that too broad of a decision could prevent other private entities like YouTube and Twitter from managing their platforms by imposing new constraints them. The Internet Association, a trade group, said last year that such a decision could mean the internet “will become less attractive, less safe and less welcoming to the average user.”

Nevertheless, this decision appears to make those concerns vanish. The conduct of these organizations and Social Media is now suppressing public comment. Nothing in the First Amendment allows private people or companies to suppress public opinion and put out propaganda.

The dissent, written by Justice Sotomayor, viewed correctly that “This is a case about an organization appointed by the government to administer a constitutional public forum. (It is not, as the Court suggests, about a private property owner that simply opened up its property to others.) New York City (the City) secured a property interest in public access television channels when it granted a cable franchise to a cable company.”

The granting of any license is the surrender of constitutional rights. Registering with the SEC means you waive your 4th Amendment Rights and they can come to search your office without a warrant. Congress can easily propose a law that expressly prohibits censorship and the Supreme Court would uphold that. This case turned on whether it was a government actor, but it was non-profit. There is plenty of room here to tackle a very important issue of free speech.

Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Oct 12, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett intends to honor her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia in her opening speech to the Senate. As I have explained, candidates for the Supreme Court NEVER appeared before the Senate until 1925 when one senator objected because he was being investigated.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett before the Judiciary Committee is a former law clear to former Justice Scalia who has invoked his judicial philosophy that she tries to mirror. According to her opening statement, Judge Barrett is stating clearly that she learned a critical lesson from Scalia to “apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were.” Of all the Supreme Court decisions I have read which are far too many to even number, no other legal mind ever impressed me so much as Justice Scalia. He was truly an unbiased person and applied the law as a strict constructionist.

Judge Barret states: “Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.”

While Michael Bloomberg was offering to pay all felon’s fines in Florida if they would vote, what he failed to understand is that Trump is liked by prisoners for he is the first president to reform the laws. Under Obama, he deported more people than Trump ever dreamed of. The Clintons signed in the harsh drug laws that extended the time for blacks. But even more against these assumptions that Democrats are for the people and Republicans are only for the rich, the greatest reform in the drug laws was championed by Justice Scalia.

In Apprendi v New Jersey, this decision championed by Justice Scalia was based upon strict construction. It was a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, along with Souter, Thomas, Ginsberg, and Scalia. Steven was put on the court by a Republican President as was Scalia, Thomas, and Souter while Ginsberg was appointed by Clinton. Justices Rehnquist, Kennedy, and O’Conner were appointed by Ronald Reagan and Justice Breyer was also appointed by Clinton. That court was 7 republican appointees v 2 Democrat. That decision demonstrates that all this yelling about Barreett will tip the court 6-3 and the world will come to an end we have heard so many times and it is just nonsense.

In the Apprendi decision, the dissent written by Justice O’Connor conceded: “Today, in what will surely be remembered as a watershed change in constitutional law, the Court imposes as a constitutional rule the principle it first identified in Jones.” She was correct. But under her view, the government need not apply law and judges should be free to sentence you to whatever they think is appropriate in their mid. That is the reestablishment of tyranny.

I am comfortable that Judge Barrett will defend the constitution which is actually NEGATIVE not positive! I would love to collaborate with lawyers who have the guts to challenge that fundamental principle. In Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), the Supreme Court of the United States held that states participating in Medicaid are NOT required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement was unavailable. The Court also held that the funding restrictions did not violate the Fifth Amendment or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Effectively, the Bill of Rights is a negative restraint upon government rather than a list of positive rights of the individual.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Fifth Amendment

The Bill of Rights is written in a NEGATIVE tone, whereby it is a restrain upon government. Courts now allow people to waive every right. Can you then be sentenced to 18 months and state you waive your right to life and wish to be executed? No judge would grant that motion. Yet they hold you can waive your right not to be tortured by waiving your right to remain silent. In a case Braswell v US, they held that corporate officers can be denied their Fifth Amendment rights because the corporation has none.

Clearly, under strict construction, there is NO power of government to create even lockdowns. The Harris court held: “Where, as here, the Congress has neither invaded a substantive constitutional right or freedom, nor enacted legislation that purposefully operates to the detriment of a suspect class, the only requirement of equal protection is that congressional action be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. ” The death rate of COVID-19 is no greater than the Flu. There is NO legitimate governmental interest at stake.

I would roll the dice with Judge Barrett and believe she would be on our side. It does not matter if a Republican or a Democrat appoints a justice. They do NOT always vote based upon their Party lines.