Dave:

The disconnect between big-L Liberals and little-L liberals on economic issues comes down to the fact that big-L’s don’t see corporations as a voluntary organization of individuals. Once people assemble to do business they are something foreign, hostile, and without rights.

No, the liberals are hostile to all businessmen, and often pass laws that especially disadvantage small businesses.

The Constitution says what it says:

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.

Doesn’t say by whom or for what. There are no modifiers. Doesn’t say “except when individuals organize themselves into a corporation.”

…or except commercial speech.

Laws against slander, libel, etc. are then, necessarily, not the purview of Feds ala Congress, but the States.

I’m afraid you’ve missed the point. At the country’s inception, there were many laws on the books restricting freedom of speech, and the framers had no doubt that they were Constitutional. Libel, Slander, publication of troop movements, fighting words and commercial speech are all examples of speech that the drafters of our Constitution never viewed as “free speech” and never intended to protect under the First Amendment. Over the last 200 years the court has grown far more liberal; libel against public figures now requires thoughtful malice (U.S. v. Sullivan), the fighting words doctrine is essentially dead, commercial speech enjoys most of the protections given to private speech, etc.

A corporation might fit the technical definition of an “assembly,” as a school might, but neither of them is going to use a free speech right to express any views except those of the guys at the top. The principal gets the speech, not the students, the executive gets the speech, not the employees. I don’t see any gain for democracy there. Let the students and the principal each speak for themselves and the school’s free speech right will be covered.

That isn’t contradictory. You are free to speak but you are not from from the consequences that your speech causes. It’s akin to a radio announcer who says something offensive on air, the radio station gets a heap of complaints especially from their sponsors and the radio announcer gets fired. Or, the right to purcahas and own a gun doesn’t give you the right to shoot people willy-nilly.

You could argue that case law cannot trump the clear text of the Constitution, but it’s clear that the first amendment isn’t as straightforward as Warren is making it out to be. For instance, nobody would seriously argue that libel or slander is protected speech. Congress has obviously made laws abridging this sort of speech, and such laws existed at common law, before any Constitution was ever adopted, before the framers were even born. Are such laws thus unconstitutional? Looking at the plain text, it would certainly appear so, but it’s plainly obvious that the framers did not seek to protect such speech.

With this in mind, the argument becomes much cloudier. Looking at the history of the U.S., commercial speech has only recently been afforded similar protections that private speech has always enjoyed. If anything, the Court has become more willing to acknowledge that corporations are merely groups of individuals.

The government interpreting the reasonability of provisions of a charter limiting its powers.

How whack is that?

I think even the con law folk agree that case law cannot trump the clear text of the Constitution. And, as Warren says, it says right here: “Congress shall make no law…”

Which essentially means that precedent and stare decesis have about the effect that We the People are willing to let them have.

But, of course, if we just sit back and accept that “SCOTUS says…” then, we’ve let them have it, haven’t we?

M