[67110] in Cypherpunks
Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dale Thorn)
Wed Oct 2 20:22:08 1996
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 01:01:30 -0700
From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
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.
