Wikileaks & protecting the government from embarrassment

[Rosenthal, Lawrence]

Mr. Assange will be gratified to learn that when it comes to the constitutionality of a prosecution of him, "Court opinions don't count."  The courts that would actually consider his case, however, may take a different view.
 
If we are to confine ourselves to framing-era evidence, however, the Sedition Act is surely one precedent that the original meaning of congressional powers as well as the First Amendment supports punishing those who are thought to engage in expression that obstructs government policy.  It is perhaps for this reason that I doubt that Mr. Assange, if prosecuted, will be talking much about framing-era evidence.
 
Larry Rosenthal
Chapman University School of Law

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Jon Roland
Sent: Fri 12/10/2010 8:03 AM
To: Pohlman, Harold
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Wikileaks & protecting the government from embarrassment


On 12/10/2010 09:36 AM, Pohlman, Harold wrote: 

	the constitutionality of statues that punish disclosure of classified information are clearly constitutional.

Not clear to everyone. Or that they apply to any but government personnel. Perhaps you would care to cite the clause of the Constitution that authorize them, as applied to either citizens or foreigners, backed by historical evidence from before 1787. Court opinions don't count, unless they contain such evidence. Unless you take the position that courts can amend the Constitution without the Article V procedures, in which case it is court opinions and not the Constitution that is the Supreme Law.


-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org <http://constitution.org/> 
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322              Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001                   jon.roland at constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------