In Washington, D.C., the shutdown has paralyzed parts of the government. Meanwhile, business and life goes on for commercial enterprises, including the making and selling of Beer.
But (insert ominous music here) the government is closed and cannot be bothered to regulate the commercial free speech that it has decreed is required in order for the Beer Brewers to label and sell their product.
So… if the government is required to approve speech, is it really free speech?
Source: Atlas Shrugs | Plausibly Live
A Nashville judge ruled against the state of Tennessee Wednesday in a case that challenged a law prohibiting nonpartisan political action committees from making campaign contributions to candidates within 10 days of an election.
It means the state can’t enforce the “blackout period” statute over PACs. Under Tennessee law, only committees controlled by a political party have been able to contribute financially to candidates 10 days out from an election.
In her ruling, Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle granted judgement in favor of a nonprofit called Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws, which sued the state over the law ahead of the August state primary election.
The ruling came after Lyle granted a motion from the non-profit to exclude evidence presented by the state. The judge said the state did not comply with a court order to provide a description of testimony to be given by a witness.
“The court concludes that the way the state has proceeded, it has the effect of a trial by ambush and it doesn’t provide an opportunity for the other side to defend against proof that the defendant, the state, seeks to offer,” Lyle said.
As a result, Lyle said the state has “insufficient facts” to withstand the plaintiff’s claims. “So judgement is granted in favor of the plaintiff.”
State vows to appeal decision
The court had set a timeline for an expedited trial in the case.
Deputy Attorney Gen. Janet Kleinfelter, representing the state, said the state intends to appeal the decision in the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
“We’ll get that motion and notice filed today, your honor,” she said.
The lawsuit said that Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws hoped to make a $500 contribution to Republican Tennessee House District 56 candidate Joseph Williams, who lost in the Republican primary to Brent Moody.
But they were limited to making the contribution because of the blackout period restriction. The group had donated $300 to Williams prior to the blackout period.
“Elected officials and political parties cannot lawfully censor disfavored political speakers while reserving special treatment in the political process for themselves,” said Daniel Horwitz, an attorney for Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws. “In securing this groundbreaking win, we are proud to have made Tennessee’s democratic process just a little bit freer.”
The suit calls the law “an overbroad speech restriction that criminalizes substantial protected speech and unconstitutionally proscribes core political speech that falls within a realm in which the importance of First Amendment protection is at its zenith.”
Horwitz was joined by attorney Jamie Hollin in representing the plaintiff. The same duo successfully sued the Davidson County Election Commission earlier this year to force a special mayoral election in May to replace former Mayor Megan Barry as opposed to an election in August.
Reach Joey Garrison at 615-259-8236, email@example.com and on Twitter @joeygarrison.
After recent school shootings, the proposal was made to raise the age for purchasing guns to twenty-one. In at least two cases, challenges were filed and in at least one of those, the challenge was upheld as the practice was seen as being in violation of equal protection and various State laws.
So now we move to the state of Louisiana. The Legislature there, deeply concerned about the well-being of young and vulnerable women who dance with exposed breasts and/or buttocks for money from patrons who must remain at least three feet away, must be twenty-one years of age in order to do so.
Naturally, the dancers who performed with exposed breasts and/or buttocks and who were under 21 sued in Federal Court. They are claiming that the law would violate their constitutional right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed for money from patrons who must be at least three feet away.
Now look, there are a whole lot of issues here that we could get into, and perhaps we will tomorrow. But for now, the question is simply this: does a law restricting the right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed to twenty-one and older meet muster Constitutionally? It’s not quite as clear-cut as you might think, and it’s what we talk about today on Constitution Thursday…