Ladies and gentlemen, remember when you wake and sleep at the National Constitution Center Affiliates it too should america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis beautiful. That sounded great. There is no more important part of our great nation and to disseminate the most import ideas in america for promoting nonpartisan constitutional reform and we have several upcoming programs that i will plug including december 2, we will host a breaking news town hall on what the constitution says that impeachment and we will bring together a range of legislators and scholars to discuss the history and constitutional dimension of the impeachment process. December 5, Judicial Center on the Fourth Amendment and privacy historical perspectives in december 6, should be a moving program called that the girl in the picture remembering vietnam and it will include the heroic human rights activist who has a child was immortalized in the infamou
Cooperate to proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argument so let me focus on whats different about texas. One thing thats different abtexas is its definition of social media platforms excludes website. We can put the gmail issue to one side when talk about texas. It also excludes websites primarily focused on news, sports and entertainment. In the First Amendment business we call that contentbased discrimination. Thats one of the reasons this statute is unconstitutional. The other thing thats different is that in some respects this statute operates more simply because it forebids my clines from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Were used to thinking that viewpoint discrimination is a bad thing and the government shouldnt do it. And of course when governments do it it is a bad thing. When editors of speakers engage in viewpoint discrimination that is their First Amendment right. It is also absolutely vital to the operation of these websites because if you have to be viewpoint n
They have to keep it separate in their mind. Issue a ruling. This runs about 2 1 2 hours. Cooperate to proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argument so let me focus on whats different about texas. One thing thats different abtexas is its definition of social media platforms excludes website. We can put the gmail issue to one side when talk about texas. It also excludes websites primarily focused on news, sports and entertainment. In the First Amendment business we call that contentbased discrimination. Thats one of the reasons this statute is unconstitutional. The other thing thats different is that in some respects this statute operates more simply because it forebids my clines from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Were used to thinking that viewpoint discrimination is a bad thing and the government shouldnt do it. And of course when governments do it it is a bad thing. When editors of speakers engage in viewpoint discrimination that is their First Amendment right. It is also
The Supreme Court also heard oral argument in another case that questions whether states can restrict content moderation on social media. The justices will have until june to will on this case. This comes out of florida. It is about 2 1 2 hours. We will hear argument next in case 22 555 netchoice versus paxton. If it may please the court, i dont want to proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argument. Let me focus on whats different about paxton. One thing that is different is its definition of social media platforms excludes websites. We can put the gmail issue to one side for talking about texas. The other it excludes is websites that are primarily focused on news sports and entertainment. In the First Amendment business we call that contentbased discrimination. Thats one of the many reasons this is spatially unconstitutional. The other different is in some respects this statute operates were simply because it forbids my clients from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. We are use
repercussions for the election this year and also for the future of american democracy. it is arguably the most important election case to reach the supreme court since bush v gore nearly a quarter century ago. the question before the court is pretty simple actually. does section 3 of the 14th amendment, which bars, quote, an officer of the united states who, quote, engaged in insurrection from holding public office actually apply to the man who incited the january 6th riot, who tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power for the first time since the civil war. the colorado state supreme court has already ruled that, yes, trump should be barred from the ballot in that state based on the insurrection that he clearly engaged in. quote, president trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under section 3 because he is disqualified it would be a wrongful act under the election code for the secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot