From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:32:29 +0800
To: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.960922143515.533A-100000@gak>
Message-ID: <324643DA.2381@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Mark M. wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Bill Stewart wrote:
> > The First Amendment does not contain the phrase "national security"
> > anywhere in it.  It does, however, begin with a rather explicit
> > "Congress shall make no law" which it applies to a bunch of things.
> > However, the body of the Constitution does say there should be a
> > Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has (fairly reasonably) given 
> > itself
> > the job of deciding what's Constitutional and what's not.
> > The Supremes have, over the years, made a bunch of generally 
> > outrageous
> > decisions about what kinds of speech are protected by the First 
> > Amendment
> > and what kinds aren't, though their opinions have been gradually
> > improving since some of the really appalling ones earlier in the 
> > century.

> I did a little searching and couldn't find anything about a national
> security exception in the Consitution.  It's already a stretch to
> claim that disclosure of information vital to "nation security" is
> treason.  The Espionage Act, which is so obviously unconstitutional, 
> seems to make "harmful" speech illegal.

Although we're (allegedly) governed by the Constitution, the principles 
contained in the DOI have precedence.  With issues such as modern 
National Security (in a nuclear age, etc.), where certain aspects of the 
Constitution seem to get skirted or excepted for The Greater Good, you 
might want to include the DOI in your analysis.