[632] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Dartmouth and Zeta Psi
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Presley H Cannady)
Sat May 12 19:05:04 2001
Message-Id: <200105122304.TAA25446@w20-575-98.mit.edu>
To: Matt Craighead <craighea@MIT.EDU>
cc: "Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU, revprez@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 12 May 2001 17:09:07 EDT."
<3AFDA673.F7657253@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 19:04:44 -0400
From: Presley H Cannady <revprez@MIT.EDU>
>
> Well, read the First Amendment. Note the phrasing. "Congress shall
> make no law..." This says absolutely _nothing_ about what private
> organizations may or may not do.
I think you're missing the point. I understand the line between
private and public. What I'm asking is how an organization such
as Dartmouth proclaim in its loudest liberal voice that it
promotes free discussion and then quash on the spirit of the
First Amendment. I understand valid restrictions on the
First Amendment, especially when they are explicitly stated
and properly reasoned. However, I do not understand the
contradictory position of liberal universities that pretend
to support constitutional guarantees and then turn around and
do things like this.
> There _are_ parts of the Constitution that do impact private
> organizations, but the First Amendment itself affects *only* Congress.
> (Does the First apply to states? This is not nearly so clear-cut, but I
> would argue that the 14th Amendment extends the 1st to also apply to
> state legislatures.)
Actually, the all amendments have been incorporated by the judiciary
to include all public institutions by reading of the 14th Amendment.
It happened long after the amendment was ratified, but the judiciary
now holds every level and partition of government to the US Constitution,
regardless if a specific institution is named (i.e., Congress).
> So, for example, if MIT forced all students, as a condition of coming to
> MIT, to agree to a speech code, no matter how ridiculous the speech code
> was, that would still be constitutionally acceptable.
This is true, and I would have no problem with that morally (except personally,
because I think it'd be dumb). I just have problems with conduct
codes that are not explicit and run against everything an institution
advertises itself as. I also dislike baby boomer liberals.
> On the other hand, FCC regulation of content on the airwaves is
> blatantly unconstitutional.
Not necessarily. The FCC cannot stop a radio station LEGALLY
from airing regulated material. They can levy fines, though.
> Some leftist judges may disagree with my desire to actually take the
> Constitution _literally_, rather than arbitrarily changing its meaning
> based on their latest whim or based on whether the entrails of this
> week's sacrificial goat coiled clockwise or counterclockwise, but that
> doesn't make their silly interpretations any more right. :)
While it's true that interpretation is subjectivism, I do prefer
textual constructionism to the arbitrary nature of interpreting
a "living Constitution." Of course, this also means that the
right to privacy, as produced by the judiciary over the last
thirty years, runs counter to my sensibilities.
Rev Prez
