July 18, 2006
"FIRST AMENDMENT JUJITSU":
Stealing First: Dick Cheney as the next First Amendment poster child. (Akhil Reed Amar, 18 July 2006, Slate)
In an administration not known for its love of the Bill of Rights, Vice President Richard Cheney may soon find himself in a new role: defender of the First Amendment...
Along with several other current or former administration officials, Cheney is being sued by Valerie and Joseph Wilson, who claim that, in response to an anti-administration op-ed Mr. Wilson published in July 2003 in the New York Times, the defendants violated the Wilsons' constitutional rights by organizing a vicious whispering campaign against them. One result of this campaign was a newspaper column, authored by journalist Robert Novak, that outed Ms. Wilson (nee Valerie Plame) as a CIA operative...
Zenger defended freedom of expression, and Cheney should do likewise. In other words, Cheney should use this as a teaching moment, to explain how a proper understanding of First Amendment principles actually supports him and not the Wilsons, who have claimed that Cheney violated their free-expression rights. The result would be an elegant First Amendment jujitsu, using all the Wilsons' free-press momentum against them, to defeat their lawsuits.
Here is the key fact that Cheney should stress: Unlike Nixon, who fired a government whistle-blower, Cheney did not fire the Wilsons. He merely spoke out against them. True, he did so furtively, in what many might view as an underhanded whispering campaign. But the First Amendment protects a wide variety of speech and expression, encompassing the right to print, orate, and yes, to whisper—even to whisper anonymously and with petty or partisan motivation.
And to whom were Cheney and his fellow defendants whispering? To the press! This is the other key fact for the New Dick Cheney—the Zorro/Zenger Defender of the First Amendment. The Wilsons claim that they were being punished for speaking out against Cheney and the administration. But if the Wilsons have a right to criticize Cheney in the press, Cheney can claim that he has an equal right to criticize the Wilsons when talking to the press, whether on the record or off.Hear that? That's the sound of hundreds of Con Law professors tearing their hair out and gnashing their teeth. Posted by Pepys at July 18, 2006 8:44 PM
I get the Cheney argument, but what constitutional right are the plaintiffs asserting? The right to not be criticized?
Posted by: oj at July 18, 2006 9:55 PMIf nothing else, if Cheney used this tact it would make the wiring of Gail Collins' brain and all the others on the New York Times editorial board melt down like one of those comptuers on "Star Trek" that Capt. Kirk would burn out by using some sort of logical conundrum.
Posted by: John at July 18, 2006 9:59 PMThe Constitutional claims are fantastic!
Cheney et al violated the Plames :
1) First Amendment right of government employees to be free from retaliation for exercising the "right to speech"(?).
2) Fifth Amendment right to Equal Treatment Under the Law which prohibits government officials from treating individuals differently without legitimate basis.
3) Fifth Amendment Right to Privacy that prohibits government officials from disclosing private information.
4) Fifth Amendment Right to Property that prohibits government agents from depriving individuals of property without due process.
5) Conspiracy to Deprive Defendants of the above Constitutional Rights.
6) Negligence in failing to stop the above violations.
Posted by: Pepys at July 18, 2006 11:16 PMGiven the known facts, none of these alleged acts actually happened. Plame was exposed by Novak checking "Who's Who in America". If anyone should be sued it should be Wilson for paying money to publish his wife's name in a vanity publication.
Posted by: Gideon at July 19, 2006 3:33 AM