Justice Buchwald subverts legislative intent of First Amendment-twitter case



This Fifth Column judge, NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, rests here opinion on the “public forum” doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court, which in itself is an invention of the Court unknown to our founders — an invention not in harmony with the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, was adopted. In fact, the First Amendment, along with nine other Amendments, were intentionally adopted to preclude and forbid federal force to be used to meddle in America’s free market system nor dictate rules by which We the People communicate.

Now, with regard to the “Bill of Rights”, which includes the First Amendment, we find the founders expressed intentions in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security." __ Federalist Paper No. 45

The bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the people’s affairs, including how they communicate with each other. In fact, they (the First Ten Amendments) were never intended to allow Fifth Column judges and Justices to interpret their meaning in a manner allowing them to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law!

This freaken judge needs to be punished for imposing her will as the rule of law and ignoring the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, were adopted.


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


Just for the record, at least twenty of our Fifth Column news papers around the country have repeatedly refused to publish my letters to the editor on numerous occasions in which I refute their socialist, communist, progressive propaganda. And I accept their right to refuse to publish my letters because that is what freedom is about ___ precluding government force being used to meddle in and dictate rules by which We the People communicate.

Do we really want judges or Justices meddling in and dictating rules by which we communicate? I know they do that in places like Cuba and Venezuela, but do we really want that here.

Judge, NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD apparently wants to exercise that authority and power.



This nitwit judge, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is alleging the First Amendment forbids President Trump to block critics on his personal Twitter account. Keep in mind the complainants in the case did not assert being blocked on any official government accounts, e.g., @WhiteHouse. The account in question has been in use by Trump several years before running for president, and lately is used by Trump to call out Fake News, Russia-gate, and comment on other political issues of the day. It is not used for official government purposes as is, e.g., @POTUS is used for official government business.

As pointed out in an article titled: Is It Really Illegal for Trump to Block People on Twitter Now?

”The judge’s logic turns the traditional way of viewing the First Amendment on its head: Your right to free speech doesn’t extend to a right to make someone else, even a politician you have good reason to loathe, listen to you. The Supreme Court expanded on this in a 1984 case, ruling that a “person’s right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others.”


” Appellees have no constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views. They have no such right as members of the public, as government employees, or as instructors in an institution of higher education.


The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy. In Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915), this Court rejected a claim to such a right founded on the Due Process [465 U.S. 271, 284] Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “

In the instant case the complainants are free to setup a Twitter account and complain all they want about President Trump and likewise free to block opposing points of view, and our Constitution prohibits interfering with this fundamental right ___ a right which even extends to President Trump, as much as he is hated by our nitwit “Never Trump Crowd”.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald needs to take her dog-and-pony show elsewhere, perhaps to Cuba or Venezuela where dictators will embrace her with open arms.


Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary


This decision is going to backfire on the left. The long-term effect is scary. If Twitter is a “public forum,” I would expect regulation of and protection from shadow banning and outright banning of “conservative” speech – essentially nationalizing management of Twitter and other social media platforms, with terms of service set by bureaucrats. It gets worse. Just wait until the bureaucrats who work for Donald Trump begin “withholding licenses” – in concept – to social media platforms for using “our” infrastructure to transmit. These are all logical extensions from this case. Sort of like businesses that are now considered “public accommodations,” rejecting private property rights along with the right to refuse service if the government, the wee the people, disagree with the private property owner, i.e., the photographer, florist and baker cases all thanks to the inherent, socialist flaws in the Civil Rights Act.

Back to the case though, what should be immediately disturbing to everyone who has a social media account is that, if this judge’s ruling is the way we will do business, then no one has a right to block anyone. So we have to go to court to prove harassment and block a troll, a sort of digital restraining order. These crybabies on the left are opening the floodgates to microaggression and unsafe spaces.

I don’t know why people fear free speech and private property rights, but they do. And it’s sad.


I suspect that the mere THREAT of withholding licenses would be enough to cause these people to change their behavior for the better. Maybe not, if they use their platforms to howl about being treated “unfairly.”


And you don’t find this disturbing at all? You support public regulation of the social media? This judge’s decision against President Trump? Making it just like the airwaves? I support the president on this because I agree with this statement from our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

And I support the foundational concept of property rights, which means that even liberal outfits like Twitter are within their rights to manage their social media site as they see fit, allowing people to block other members as well as their terrible shadow banning and outright banning of conservatives as they see fit. If they go too far, they’ll alienate half of the population of the United States and shoot themselves in the foot.


Since when have activist judges had a problem with double standards?


When all is said and done, the Judge’s written opinion is baseless.

President Trump, using his personal twitter account, was commenting on political happenings of the day, which is protected under the 1st Amendment. He did not surrender this right when taking office. Official business is carried out on @potuS, @PressSec, and @WhiteHouse.

@realDonaldTrump is his private account which has been in existence long before he became president, and he uses that account to call out Fake News, Russia-gate, and comment on other political issues of the day. It is not used for official government purposes as is, the other accounts I mentioned.

This judge needs to be removed from the bench for malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance.