By Noah Feldman / Bloomberg Opinion
The extended trial brief filed by Donald Trumps lawyers advances three defenses: that Trump did not incite the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol; that the Senate cant try a president who is no longer in office; and that the First Amendment protects Trump from being impeached for words that, they say, dont meet the requirements for criminal incitement conviction laid down by the Supreme Court.
The factual defense is highly unconvincing, as anyone who watched Trumps speech on Jan. 6 and saw the attack can attest.
The argument that the Senate lacks jurisdiction over a president who is out of office is disproven by history and Senate precedent.
The free speech argument is also wrong in a basic sense: The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law abridging freedom of speech. But this doesnt apply in impeachments any more than the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial would apply to the Senate impeachment trial.
Yet the First Amendment defense requires deeper engagement than the other two, if only because it is less absurd. If it did apply to impeachments, the Supreme Courts incitement jurisprudence contained in the famous 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio probably would have protected Trumps speech.
The major component of Trumps argument is that the First Amendment applies to elected officials. As the lawyers put it only a little ungrammatically, the fatal flaw of the Houses arguments is that it seeks to meet out governmental punishments impeachments based on political speech that falls squarely within broad protections of the First Amendment.
To support their argument, Trumps lawyers cite Wood v. Georgia and Bond v. Floyd. Both are important Supreme Court cases, but neither proves that the First Amendment should apply to impeachment.
The 1962 Wood case arose when a local Georgia judge impaneled a grand jury and charged it to investigate supposedly suspicious block voting by African-American citizens. (Think of it as a precursor to todays false allegations of election scams, but in the context of the civil rights movement.)
While the grand jury was sitting, the local sheriff denounced the whole charade, telling the press that Whatever the Judges intention, the action will be considered one of the most deplorable examples of race agitation to come out of Middle Georgia in recent years . This action appears either as a crude attempt at judicial intimidation of negro voters and leaders or, at best, as agitation for a negro vote issue in local politics. The judge responded by holding the sheriff in contempt of court.
In an opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren (not Justice William Brennan, as Trumps lawyers say), the court held that the contempt order violated the sheriffs free speech rights. The statement hadnt interfered with the sheriffs performance of his duties, the court explained, and added, The role that elected officials play in our society makes it all the more imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance.
This decision was about a judicial act the contempt order that would have imprisoned the sheriff. It had nothing to do with impeachment. It certainly shows that public officials possess First Amendment rights. Trump does, too. But that means only that he cant be criminally prosecuted for protected speech, not that he cant be impeached for inciting the Capitol attack.
The Bond case, in 1966, involved an attempt by the Georgia legislature to refuse to seat the civil rights activist Julian Bond when he was elected to that body. The legislature claimed that, because Bond opposed the Vietnam War and the draft, he could not have sincerely taken his oath to support the Constitution and laws of the United States. In another opinion by Chief Justice Warren (also misidentified by Trumps lawyers as Justice Brennan), the court explained that free speech applies not only to the citizen-critic but also to an elected legislator.
The ruling that the Georgia legislature could not keep Bond from taking office does not suggest that the First Amendment prohibits impeachment for Trumps incitement. The Georgia legislature wasnt impeaching Bond. It was making up a reason to exclude him from serving in the first place; conduct outside the bounds of its authority.
Apart from the moral outrageousness of comparing Donald Trump to Julian Bond, the citation seems meant to create a supposedly liberal argument for applying the First Amendment to Trump. (Maybe thats also why Trumps lawyers wanted to invoke Justice Brennan, even though he didnt write either of the opinions.)
That effort is unavailing, or should be. A robust commitment to free speech doesnt require protecting from impeachment a president who uses words in an attempt to destroy the democratic process.
Had Trumps lawyers been more forthright, they might have argued that, although the letter of the Constitution allows Trump to be impeached, the Senate should apply the spirit of the First Amendment to the case, and therefore take into account the Brandenburg definition of incitement. That argument would at least have been constitutionally respectable.
Even then, the House managers would have a good answer: that Trump violated the spirit of the Brandenburg rule by encouraging the attack on the Capitol. The former president probably couldnt be punished criminally for what he said on Jan. 6. But for the high crime of trying to break democracy, he can and should be barred from running for office again.
Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and host of the podcast Deep Background. He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. His books include The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President.
See original here:
Comment: Trump's lawyers have it wrong on First Amendment, too | HeraldNet.com - The Daily Herald
- College sued for stopping students from handing out Constitution - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Argument preview: First Amendment protections for public employees subpoenaed testimony - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- China toughens environment law to target polluters - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- 1st Amendment - Laws - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- GBS205 Legal Environment -THE FIRST AMENDMENT - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Supreme Court Preview/Review #2 - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- ConLaw Class 26 - The First Amendment Speech II - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Scalia Ginsburg debate NSA and first amendment - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Political Correctness vs First Amendment - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- ConLaw Class 25 - The First Amendment -- Speech I - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- The First Amendment - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- [USA] First Amendment abused - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- Cliven Bundy and the First Amendment - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- First Amendment Tees Co. Inc. FAT-Tee Intro Video of who we are, and what we stand for - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- University Attacks First Amendment Costs $50,000 Plus - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- First Amendment Lawsuit After '8theist' Vanity Plate Denied, 'Baptist' Approved - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- How A Public Corruption Scandal Became A Fight Over Free Speech - April 28th, 2014 [April 28th, 2014]
- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group - Video - April 28th, 2014 [April 28th, 2014]
- MSNBC: Marjorie Dannenfelser Discusses SBA List First Amendment Case - Video - April 28th, 2014 [April 28th, 2014]
- United Church of Christ sues over North Carolina ban on same-sex marriage - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Federal judge: Delayed access to court records raises First Amendment concerns - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Justices Troubled By Their Earlier Ruling On Public Employee Speech Rights - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Judge Won't Stop Jason Patric from Using Son's Name for Advocacy Purposes - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- PBL in Journalism I, 2014 - Video - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- John Dukes on First Amendment - Video - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Were Sterlings First Amendment Rights Violated? Nope. - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- Senate Dems vow vote to change Constitution, block campaign funding - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- What happened to Sterling was morally wrong - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Former Supreme Court Justice Wants to Amend the Constitution - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Donald Sterling is my HERO - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 - Martial law is next - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Westfield Mayor to pay $53K in campaign sign violation case - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- ConLaw 1 Class 27 - The First Amendment - Free Exercise - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Bar Owner Prevails in Buck Foston First Amendment Trial - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Was Donald Sterling's First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated? - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- First Amendment common sense - May 2nd, 2014 [May 2nd, 2014]
- The First Amendment Doesn't Allow us to Silence Opposition; Get Rid of Limits on Political Speech - Video - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Save Us Chuck - First Amendment Zones - Video - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- HAROLD PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- In our opinion: Why government can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- In our opinion: Can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Sen. Ed Markey proposes eliminating free speech - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Alabama Chief Justice Stunning Legal Ignorance - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Church Uses First Amendment Protections To Perform Same Sex Marriages - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- first amendment test filming Tucson FBI Headquarters. - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- "First Amendment ONLY for Christians," Says Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore - Video - May 5th, 2014 [May 5th, 2014]
- Endangered Speeches - Video - May 5th, 2014 [May 5th, 2014]
- First Amendment Monument Music Video by Daniel Brouse - Video - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- first amendment rights - Video - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- News media challenges ban on journalism drones - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT - Video - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- Letter: First Amendment rights trampled - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- News outlets say US drone ban breaches First Amendment - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Chucking the First Amendment: Schumers cranky scheme - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Screw the First Amendment | We cant let people pray? - Video - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Chief Justice: 1st Amendment Only Protects Christians - Video - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Inside the Classroom with Professor Leslie Kendrick - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- 2014 Civics Video Awards First Amendment - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- .First Amendment protects political speech, not profanity - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- Charles "Chip" Babcock on Campaign Finance and the First Amendment - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- A First Amendment attack on Assembly... in George Washington - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- SUPREME STUPIDITY Kills The First Amendment - RIP Separation of Church & State (1787-2014) - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- FBI Agents Harass Photographer: First Amendment Test - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- History Project: First Amendment. - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- SDG&E Challenges The First Amendment and Loses - Video - May 11th, 2014 [May 11th, 2014]
- Richmond City Council Uses Tricks to Undermine First Amendment - Video - May 11th, 2014 [May 11th, 2014]
- Their opinion: Disagreeing on the First Amendment - May 12th, 2014 [May 12th, 2014]
- The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium - Video - May 12th, 2014 [May 12th, 2014]
- City Charter amendment passes 581-556 - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- David Allen Legal Tuesday: Flashing Automobile Lights and the First Amendment - Video - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Senator Chuck Schumer is against the First Amendment then and now - Video - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Facebook SUCKS! - Video - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Dems threaten Kochs with a constitutional amendment - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Reid backs campaign spending limit - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Tennessee Boy Recites First Amendment Rights After Being Told to Put Away His Bible - Video - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- 'Shutup,' they explained Crippling the First Amendment - May 18th, 2014 [May 18th, 2014]
- Reid Seeks To Change First Amendment To Stop Koch Brothers - Video - May 18th, 2014 [May 18th, 2014]