Social Media Outlets and Executive Orders

Where does it say in the Constitution that the President has the power to regulate media?   

Trump recently stated that he is considering an executive order that will regulate Google, Facebook and other online social media outlets because they hide issues and evidence about conservative tenets yet promote liberal viewpoints.   

Trump makes these claims about the media outlets without any evidence, but this blog will still examine the idea of an executive order to regulate media. 

Even if the social media outlets did downplay conservative issues while at the same time promoting liberal ones, as Trump suggests, they have every right to do as they please. 

So, let’s look at four issues, three of which are clauses in the 1st amendment and a third that is a logical application from many Supreme Court decisions: 

• - A clause in the 1st amendment says Congress has no power to regulate the press; 
• - Another clause states that there shall be no law preventing people from assembling; 
• - A third clause states that people shall have a right to petition the government to answer to their concerns; and, 
• - The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “people” when applying Constitutional principle. (1) 

Here is the 1st amendment in its entirety: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Here are details to the issues. 

The first clause that prevents the President from regulating the press is: 

• - “Congress shall make no law respecting…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” 

The legality of recent executive orders aside, it is still a legal instrument of the United States government.   

Since Executive orders are an instrument of the government, it has no power to order any action that is against Constitutional principles. 

An executive order that is issued by the President directing social media outlets to follow guidelines or issue rules that regulates the social media outlet’s content, is unconstitutional. 

The second clause in the 1st amendment that prevents the President from issuing an executive order that restrict the social media outlets is: 

• - Congress shall make no law that prevents “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. 

Assembling is not always as we think of it, that is, people physically being in the same geographic place at the same time.   

Assembling can also be a formal network of people that belong to an organization, or, it can be an informal assembly of people that visit a website throughout their day. 

The website, in this case, a social media outlet, has the right to draw to it only the people who are the same mindset as the outlet or its owners. 

To attract the people the outlet wants, it will present information and entertainment that is deemed important and useful to these people. 

This is no different than a campaign rally held by a presidential candidate.  The candidate will only want his or her supporters at the event.   

With only having people that support the candidate at the event it avoids hecklers and others that may present opposing arguments to the statements made by the candidate. 

An executive order that violates the outlet’s ability to draw the type of people they want to their site is unconstitutional. 

The third clause of the 1st amendment states that people have a right to ask the government to address their issues. 

• - “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” 

A social media outlet may from time to time, present facts, information and entertainment that they want the government and the culture to address. 

To confuse the user of the outlet about which issues they want the government to address means that less people will choose to join the outlet in asking the government to address issues. 

Let’s return to above about a presidential campaign rally. 

The candidate stands on the stage alone backed by people that support him.   

The people behind the candidate are chosen because of their support of the presidential candidate. 

The signs, the clothes and the actions they take are in support of the candidate and no others are allowed.  

It is so the candidate can say these are my ideas and these people support me. 

No different then a social media outlet doing the same thing. 

An executive order that forces the outlet to present information that isn’t consistent with their goals would be a violation of the Constitution. 

Finally, the Supreme Court rulings that decided that corporations are people. 

• - Numerous Supreme Court rulings (2) 

All the above presented arguments are meant to be directed at individuals.  After all, that is the focus of the Constitution. 

But social media outlets are corporations, not unlike many other media outlets such as the New York Times, the ABC network and CBS radio.   

The Supreme Court has ruled many times about extending Constitutional rights to corporations, all in favor of expanding their rights and not retracting them. (2) 

Since corporations are afforded the same rights as individuals, then all rights that are explicitly and implicitly in the Constitution apply to corporations. 

The 1st amendment of the Constitution apply to corporations and an executive order that limits 1st amendment rights is unconstitutional.  

In conclusion: 

- An executive order that is issued by a President that directs social media outlets to follow guidelines or issue rules that regulates the social media outlet’s content, is unconstitutional. 

- An executive order that violates the outlet’s ability to draw the type of people they want to their site is unconstitutional. 

- An executive order that forces the outlet to present information that isn’t consistent with their goals would be a violation of the Constitution. 

- The 1st amendment of the Constitution apply to corporations and an executive order that limits 1st amendment rights is unconstitutional.  

Any President issuing an executive order that regulates social media outlets is in violation of Constitutional principles and Supreme Court rulings. 

1. (1) The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “people” when applying Constitutional principles. While I don’t think that was a correct decision, I am going with it right now.  Both, because it is the “Law” but also because those on the right that might agree with Trump most likely support the Corporations are People concept. 

2. (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood  

Trump Allowing Israel to Refuse Entry by Members of the House is a Treasonous Act

President Trump used his power as president to the detriment of United States’ citizens and provided aid and comfort to a foreign power. 

Whatever power the president of the United States has or doesn’t have, he must always use that 

power in support of United States’ citizens. 

To take the side of a foreign state, he would be acting in the best interest of a foreign power and not the United States.

To take such action is Treasonous. 

1) When Trump said on fakebook, on twitter and other media outlets that Israel should not allow two of our members of the House of Representatives into Israel, he was not acting in the best interest of United States’ citizens.

2) By allowing Israel to block entry to the members of the House of Representatives, Trump is overstepping his executive power by reducing the ability of these two members of the House to experience themselves the result of Israeli policy on both the people of Israel and on the non-voting people that are under the care and watchful eye of Israel.

3) Trump is also reducing the power of Congress to oversee the budget and actions taken by Trump and that of an ally, Israel.

It is in the power of Congress, both explicitly and implicitly in the Constitution, to oversee the President.

By encouraging a foreign power to block entry of members of the House of Representatives to their country, Trump overstepped his power and reduced the power of the House of Representatives to carry out their function.

Action Trump should take:

Trump should publicly rebuke Israel for their action.

Trump should send a couple of Israel’s diplomats’ home each week until Israel relents on their action.

Trump, by the emergency power of the executive order, should reduce the amount of aide being provide Israel and hinge restoration on the reversal of their policy.

If Trump doesn’t take the above actions to force Israel to allow the members of the House entry and is not held accountable for his actions, he will do it again.

Given the statements made by Trump over the last few days directly relating to this situation, the attacks Trump has made on the members of Congress over the last couple of months, to the praise Netanyahu gave Trump after the Israeli Prime Minister won the election, the Trump’s encouragement for Israel to refuse entry and not pressuring Israel to left the ban on any member of the House of Representatives into Israel is Trump’s Treasonous acts.

Copyright by:

Morris Hagerman

morrishagermanhome@gmail.com

Eric's Law Violates the 5th and 6th Amendments

This post is in opposition to a proposed law entitled “Eric’s Law.”

It would allow a second jury, or capital jury, to be impaneled in the trial of a defendant that is found guilty of a capital crime, but the trial jury did not come to a unanimous decision on the death penalty.

The capital jury would decide if the death penalty should be imposed since the trial jury couldn’t conclude about the punishment.

Here is the link: Eric’s Law

To start, both the 5^th and 6^th amendments are presented. 

5^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

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; (1) 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.

6^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; (2) to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

First, reference 1 from the 5^th amendment.

(1)          nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

The proposed law is an attempt to get a death penalty verdict when the trial jury cannot fully agree on the death penalty.

If that is in doubt, when the bill was introduced, its sponsor, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) stated:

 “…would allow a new jury to be impaneled if a first jury does not reach a unanimous decision on a defendant’s [capital punishment] sentence…”

It means, if the trial jury doesn’t hand down a capital punishment decision, then the prosecutors get to try again.

This would be placing the accused in “jeopardy of life or limb” a second time for the same offense.

The accused would need to make a defense a second time, violating the intent of the 5^th amendment.

But, sense the accused can’t be placed on trial again because of the nasty 5^th amendment, they will seat another jury and not retry.

This is just what would happen in Pre-Constitutional times in America. 

If England could not get the verdict it wanted, or if the jury did not issue the punishment they wanted, they tried again and again.

In the end, the same jury that hears the case, the trial jury, should be the only jury that both judges the case and the decision on the accused’s fate.

Now, reference 2 from the 6^th amendment.

(2)          to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor

The trial jury would have the benefit of hearing from witnesses on both sides of the argument.

The trial jury would see and hear the evidence, which is presumed, the capital jury would also have access to the same evidence. 

But the trial jury would have a benefit that is doubtful the capital jury would have. 

The trial jury would have the benefit of looking into the eyes of the people that are witnesses and making judgments on their character.

If indeed, the capital jury did have access to those witnesses again, it would clearly be a second trial and violate the 5^th amendment.

So, the capital jury would not be allowed to hear from those witnesses.

The capital jury would only be allowed to review the trial transcripts.

This process of seeing and hearing from the witnesses is not only important in deciding on the guilt of the accused but also the punishment, if any, the accused should receive.

The capital jury will not have the benefit of both seeing and hearing the evidence directly from the witnesses, missing the character analysis. 

This process will be violating the clause of the 6^th amendment above referenced as number 2.

The proposed, “Eric’s Law” is a sham and should be seen for that. 

It violates a 5^th amendment clause that a person should not be place on trial twice for the same crime.

Additionally, it violates a clause in the 6^th amendment that witnesses should be presented on both sides of the argument. 

This law is an attempt to get a capital punishment verdict, no matter what the jury that heard the case decides.