Miss Constitution and the Ivy-League Presidents II by M.E. Boyd

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and, as it did here, inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Snyder v Phelps (2011).

“As a nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

Miss Constitution would have you, the reader, take in deeply this statement by the Chief Justice. Other countries try and ban or do ban what is deemed hurtful or hateful speech. America does not. Our Founders and the interpretation of the US Constitution by the US Supreme Court asks us to counter hurtful or hateful speech with counter-speech. There is tremendous pressure by forces within the United Nations to neuter this fundamental concept of our system. In the current Israeli/Palestinian public policy debate, hurtful anti-Semitic speech on university campuses has been the source of a riveting Congressional hearing along with the revelation that the Presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT are not familiar with fundamental 1^st Amendment Free Speech principles.

The following are some of the relevant cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding this most important Liberty against government suppression.

Cases involving parameters of protected speech itself:

Barron v Baltimore (1833) – the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution applies to the federal government only. The 1^st Amendment Free Speech Clause then, that protects speech involving public policy from government interference, would only apply to actions by the federal government, not state governments.

Gitlow v New York (1925) – the Supreme Court ruled that 1^st Amendments Free Speech protections now apply to state governments under a judicially created Incorporation Doctrine.

Stromberg v California (1931) – signs and symbols are “speech” for purposes of 1^st Amendment analysis.

West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette (1943) – speech cannot be forced; no public school can force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance, for instance.

Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) – public policy speech can be banned if it would incite “imminent lawless action.”

Watts v United States (1969) – to be banned speech must be a “true threat” not an exaggeration. To determine whether a true threat analysis should be begin with context.

Miller v California (1973) – not all profanity rises to obscene speech that can be banned. If offended, look away. Obscenity must be excessively lewd, excessively vulgar, and/or lacks any artistic value.

National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie (1977) – hateful speech is protected unless it is a threat to an individual.

Snyder v Phelps (2011) – see above quote from the Chief Justice. Hurtful speech on public policy is protected from government interference by the 1^st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Texas v Johnson (1989) – flag burning is symbolic speech.

Reno v ACLU (1997) – online speech is regulated by social media companies.

United States v Alvarez (2012) – speech does not necessarily have to be truthful.

Creative LLC v Elenis (2023) – website businesses cannot be forced to create messages that they do not believe in.

Cases involving time, place, and manner restrictions:

Hill v Colorado (2000) – restrictions must be narrowly tailored.

City of Lakewood v Plain Dealer Publishing (1988) – fees for permits must be reasonable.

Cases involving threats to an individual:

R.A.V. v City of St. Paul (1992) – burning a cross on a private yard is a threat to an individual and can be banned symbolic speech.

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942) – speech that amounts to “fighting words” may be banned.

What does the above mean relative to current anti-Semitic speech on campuses around the country?

It means that colleges and universities that accept taxpayer funds are “government actors” and subject to the 1^st Amendment Free Speech Clause relative to express or symbolic speech on public policy regardless of whether the speech is hurtful to some. It also means that these same colleges and universities can implement reasonable time, place, manner, and forum restrictions regarding this speech or ban it if it would cause immediate lawlessness or threaten a person. If all reasonable rules are followed, however, these government actors cannot censor this speech and must protect the speakers. The Constitution supersedes any campus set of rules.

How do these Supreme Court opinions correspond to Constitutional principles?

The Constitutional principle in play is the notion that free dialogue and debate on matters of public policy should be open and all views heard if government actors (federal or state) are involved. What the Presidents of the Ivy-League schools might have said is that while the speech of the pro-Palestinian protests is Constitutionally protected, their schools, under their leadership, have encouraged diversity of viewpoint in hiring faculty or in selecting speakers, so that counter-speech to antisemitism is available to all. These school policies, if they had been implemented, would honor both the spirit of the Constitution and the reputations of their schools. Unfortunately, none of the Ivy-League Presidents now under a microscope ever thought of this type of diversity.

Like this:

https://widgets.wp.com/likes/#blog_id=154830134&post_id=22588&origin=thewillcountynews.com&obj_id=154830134-22588-657f6aa0d356c&n=1

Sounding the Trumpet By M.E. Boyd Miss Constitution

Uncategorized

By

Steve Balich

-

December 18, 2023

0

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Balich-Banner.png

Sounding the Trumpet

M. E. Boyd

12/18/2023

“He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat. . .” Julia Ward Howe, the Battle Hymn of the Republic, 1862.

As the national indignities pile up the American public is treated to books and ads on the “end times” or the “reckoning” in which the chosen (predestined) rise to glory in heaven and the rest of us simply disappear. Miss Constitution would respectfully say we are not in end times but paralyzed times. In trying to describe the satanic, the works of the devil, evil at its most glaring (Hamas taking selfies of outrages to infants and children, for instance), words fail, as English adjectives simply cannot capture the essence of what satanic is. The essence of what the satanic is, is fevered energy – evil is all fevered energy all the time. As Saul Alinsky advised – never stop the pressure; never stop creating chaos; never stop destroying; never stop defiling, never stop blaspheming, never stop lying, never stop looting, never stop burning, never stop disrespecting, never stop elevating the psychopathic and diminishing the devoted, never stop worshiping satan and the evil he lures us to acquiesce to.

“Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! . . .”

But we are not swift to answer Him – we are paralyzed, passive, and silent. Someone puts up an altar to satan at the Iowa State Capitol and we are told satanism is a religion that must be respected under the 1^st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Not true. It is not a religion it is an insult to religion. It is an insult to the very Foundations of this nation and our Moral Law. The Constitution of the United States and the bevy of mediocre and confused rulings regarding its intent and meaning over the last 200+ years is the Supreme Positive Law of the Land, it is not the Supreme Law of our land. Moral Law is the Supreme Law of the Land and it is based on Judaism and Christianity and our primary duty to God and our secondary duty to each other within the tenets of these two Faiths. A satanic altar by government actors need not be tolerated under our Constitutional system nor satanic after-school clubs promoted by Alinsky-inspired public school administrators.

Someone in authority in the Iowa Capitol allowed this display. To answer Him we must find out who did this and sound out the trumpet. We must then swiftly publicly cleanse the area that housed this display until its noxious toxicity is neutralized. This display is not protected symbolic speech and it is not a free exercise of religion, as maliciously reviling God has been, until very recent times, a punishable common law and statutory crime. Whoever thought this acceptable must face severe consequences. A Marine passerby (one who did answer) took it down immediately, thank goodness.

“He hath loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword. . .”

Where is the public energy when a teenage girl gets her teeth knocked out and her jaw broken by a post-puberty male who can only succeed through the notion that boys can be girls and girls can be boys? Where is the public energy when licensed surgeons and their surgical nurses cut off healthy tissue, rearrange healthy organs, prescribe life-altering drugs and call it gender-affirming care? Where is the terrible swift sword of exposure, of shame, of de-licensing? Where is the public energy when strippers are reading to your elementary school children; when drag queens are sexually grooming your children for future experimentation; when so-called librarians are introducing pornography to your 5 year-old? It is not God who should loose the fateful lightening, but parents, citizens, and those in public trust. Where are members of the Cloth?

Somehow satan has convinced some of the public that our Constitutional system tolerates the intolerable. Not true. Our system tolerates thought – it does not necessarily tolerate thought as action or thought translated into indoctrination. The Constitution is a simple set of Rules so that a stable society can provide the most opportunity and the most hope for the most people. The Rules already provide for equality under the law; the Rules already provide for Free Speech on public policy; the Rules already provide for worship as one sees fit. What the Rules do not provide for is public tolerance of disobedience, of the obscene, of the profane, of anarchy, of chaos, of equal outcomes, of the elevation of the meritless, or of incoherent ideologies foisted on a generally good people to freeze them into inaction. The Mayor of Boston, as a government actor, is not allowed to throw an official holiday party and say those of a certain skin color cannot attend. The terrible swift sword must force her to resign or she must be defeated at the polls. Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity spells “die” – as in the death of the American experiment in the development of the person within the Rule of Law.

“Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel. . .”

Crushing the serpent takes energy. Replacing evil with good takes energy. Saying “no” and “no more” takes energy. Putting God first takes energy. It is not just chaos, however, that freezes a good people – satan also wants to remove a remembrance of the fabric of American culture and history. The idea is that it will go unnoticed in the busy holiday season. A Commission was formed by the current federal administration to destroy commemoration of our history. Under the guidance of Ty Seidule, a retired general, a statue commemorating Reconciliation between North and South at Arlington Cemetery is to be removed right before Christmas. It was sculpted by a Jewish veteran of the Civil War and honored by every President since Woodrow Wilson. They would remove its base but Moses Ezekiel is buried there. A Naming Commission has changed the names of historic forts; has recommended Founding Fathers be removed and forgotten; is about to desecrate what is sacred to a landmark in American history. Our full and accurate history, free and open to the public, is how we learn and grow in personal and public virtue. Locals should stand in the way of tyranny, circle it, and protect the statue.

“I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,

They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;

I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:

His day is marching on.”

Miss Constitution would say, call out the trumpets, be swift with your sword, crush the serpent with your heel – take back your children, your sanity, and your country – satan can be defeated if you see him in your everyday life. Not only does he paralyze you with chaos, he works at the lowest levels of the engines of society. He joins Boards and Planning Commissions and low-level political entities. He knows that at these levels energy is at its lowest. This is where, however, the real destruction of society often takes place.

Be the watch-fire in your community. Stand in the way of the rope around George Washington’s neck; of the desecration of sacred graves and monuments; of the debauching of your children; and of the loss of knowledge of the great philosophers who gave our Founding documents life. Support those who, without need of validation, give their full measure in thought and deed to their country and its Judeo-Christian values. The satanic will always have high energy; the Righteous must have it, as well.

Miss Constitution and the Ivy-League Presidents II by M.E. Boyd

Uncategorized

By

Steve Balich

-

December 17, 2023

0