Timeline for When was the freedom of speech part of the 1st Amendment first applied to the executive and judiciary?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 8, 2021 at 13:45 | comment | added | hszmv | @WimWollff: Bit late to this party, but the ruling is that the government is allowed to restrict the speech of employees as if it was an employer without violating the First Amendment. Even Congressmen and women can restrict their staffer's speech and fire them for improper speech. | |
| Sep 22, 2019 at 14:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 25, 2019 at 1:33 | |||||
| Sep 22, 2019 at 14:02 | comment | added | User37849012643 | I'm marking this question as a duplicate because it not only asks the same question but also would have the same outcome of answers as a question that has already been asked law.stackexchange.com/questions/38677/…. | |
| Sep 22, 2019 at 14:00 | comment | added | User37849012643 | Possible duplicate of Is the 21st century's idea of "freedom of speech" based on precedent? | |
| Sep 22, 2019 at 13:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Aug 26, 2019 at 6:25 | comment | added | Wm Wolff - Law Exam Guides | The President issues Executive Orders. He's the Commander-in-Chief of the military. He has broad authority over foreign affairs. He can control the speech of the Ambassadors and embassy staffs. Federal departments and agencies promulgate regulations. There's a lot of opportunity for the Executive Branch to abridge Freedom of Speech. | |
| Aug 23, 2019 at 13:00 | comment | added | David Siegel | @hszmv you wrote "If congress cannot make a law on a matter, the President cannot enforce a law and the courts cannot make interpretations about the law" This seemed to imply that there is never need to apply 1st ad to admin or judicial actions. My point was that even if Congress (or state legislature) never passed an invalid law (which it does) unconstitutional uses of common law can and do exist. I agree with all that you said in your most recent comment. | |
| Aug 23, 2019 at 12:50 | comment | added | hszmv | @DavidSiegel: Just because they legally cannot does not mean in practice they cannot. That's why we have the word "unconstitutional". A common-law offense means that the "law" was made by case law setting legal precidence. My state, for example, doesn't have a codfied murder law because our courts long said "Murder is ilegal". THe only murder rules we have on the books are sentencing guidelines and there's never been a need to actually codify a legal definition for Murder. And my state is not unusual in this respect. | |
| Aug 23, 2019 at 12:09 | comment | added | David Siegel | @hszmv there can be unconstitutional arrests for a common-law offense, with no statute involved. See Cantwell v Ct in my answer . | |
| Aug 23, 2019 at 11:40 | answer | added | David Siegel | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 23, 2019 at 7:39 | answer | added | bdb484 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 22, 2019 at 19:41 | history | edited | A. K. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 14 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2019 at 19:23 | comment | added | hszmv | To elaborate what @pboss3010 said, the President implements and enforces the laws and the Judiciary interprets the laws... If congress cannot make a law on a matter, the President cannot enforce a law and the courts cannot make interpretations about the law (SCOTUS can interprit if a law is in complaince with the First Amendment). | |
| Aug 22, 2019 at 18:23 | comment | added | pboss3010 | The US President and the Supreme Court don't make laws. Otherwise your link goes into plenty of detail about incorporation. | |
| Aug 22, 2019 at 16:51 | history | edited | Marcel Kiesel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
corrected my title
|
| Aug 22, 2019 at 16:50 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 25, 2019 at 19:14 | |||||
| Aug 22, 2019 at 16:46 | history | asked | Marcel Kiesel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |