And now House Speaker paul ryan is telling republicans to follow their conscience. Will the party dump trump at the Cleveland Convention . Im wolf blitzer. Youre in the situation room. Breaking news, were learning new details tonight about the orlando gunman omar mateen, including the revelation he spoke on the phone with a friend during the attack. Also, the Security Company that employed him now says it did not give him a psychiatric examination despite fbi investigations into mateens possible terror ties and complaints by his coworkers of very odd behavior. We now know he made Death Threats as far back as third grade and was suspended from high school multiple times toti toting totalling 48 days. Also, signs that mateen was preparing to die in the weeks before the attack, putting affairs in order and making provisions for his wife. And Vladimir Putin is praising donald trump calling him, and im quoting now, a bright person. Putin goes on to say he would welcome a Trump Presidency be
Candidates is a First Amendment fundamental right. It says that i was quoting buckley im sure or citing buckley to that effect. Then the question becomes what level of scrutiny should we apply to that case . Buckley suggests its something less than strict strikeout me in the First Amendment context for contributions. Thats the instruction that i as lower court judgev in the First Amendment context. But this was an equal protection challenge okay, saying its not just contributions its the inquality of contributions thats the problem here that this system favors Major Party Candidates over minor party candidates. And normally when we have a fundamental right in call protection analysis we apply strict scrutiny. I was placed in a situation where do you take this little less than strict strikeout me out of the First Amendment context and import it into the quality protection context or do you apply the normal strict scrutiny. And i pointed to two wonderful pins by judges in the area okay.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.