Press rights and gun rights -- are some rights better than others?

Press rights = gun rights

Are some rights better than others?

 

Gordon L. Weil

The president has just announced by executive order that any person not a U.S. citizen is prevented from possessing a gun.   This order applies immediately to any immigrant who has not yet been naturalized.  They must turn their guns over to an eligible person or to the police. 

The president believes that the Second Amendment extends only to citizens.  It refers to the need for guns by militias, and it is obvious that state militias were not meant to include aliens.  The president’s policy is consistent with their campaign position in favor of greater gun control.

Proponents of gun rights as established under the Second Amendment have launched furious opposition to the president’s order and have filed an appeal in the federal district court in Amarillo, Texas, which has been unfavorable historically to gun control.   They seek an immediate suspension of the order.

This move by the new president, acting right after Inauguration Day 2029, immediately brings to mind earlier actions by then-President Donald Trump.  In 2026, he blocked certain news correspondents from the White House, because he deemed their probing reporting as constituting “fake news,” which he wanted to counter.

Trump now believes that the First Amendment, expressly protecting freedom of the press from government action, does not apply to the White House.   “I don’t have to let them into my – into the people’s house,” he said. 

The president might not “have to let them in” if they constituted an immediate threat to public health and safety.  But he cited no such cause and, in fact, gave no specific reason for excluding three news organizations from the White House.  He alluded only to their reporting on him and the Trump Administration.

But his quote was telltale.  He regards the White House as his house, though the landlord – the American people – sets the rules of conduct through a lease called the Constitution.  It provides that the federal government cannot override freedoms of the press and of speech.

The proponents of the Second Amendment see it as providing an absolute right to be protected from government interference.  That’s why they would protest the hypothetical 2029 presidential order.  That should also be true for the application of the First Amendment in 2026.  Why would one right be more absolute than another?

But either Trump or his successor might rely on the Supreme Court for help in asserting their ability to limit a constitutional right.  Either would have been acting within their understanding of the scope of presidential powers.  In its decision in Trump v. U.S., the Court ruled that the president is subject only to impeachment if his official acts violate the law.

Of course, after months of review, the Court could find the president’s act unconstitutional.  It would then be up to the president to obey the law or not.  If the chief executive balked, they could only be sanctioned by impeachment and removal from office, impossible in light of an inevitable partisan defense. 

Having received an unfavorable lower court injunction, Trump can be expected to ask for a Supreme Court ruling.  Trump has tended to obey the Supreme Court.  

He exercises his personal presidency.  He believes that his 2024 election, while not the landslide he claims, gave him a mandate to make major changes in federal policy and federal government operations.  His action against the news media illustrates his view of the almost unlimited extent of his presidential powers.

Republican control of Congress has given him an unusual opportunity to assert his views of the presidency.  If he succeeds in at least some of his efforts to change how the government works, it could set precedents for a Republican president even if the party loses congressional control. 

These Trump moves reflect the agenda of his key aides, Stephen Miller and Russell Vought, the principal author of Project 2025, the White House policy manual.  They are building barriers to Democratic control if it were to win by relying on the non-white popular majority that the two seem to dread.

Attacking the supposed “fake news” carried by the leading national news organizations is also likely to become part of Trump’s rejection of the results of the midterm elections, if the GOP loses.  Trump Republicans would claim voter fraud in jurisdictions they expected to win, with elections taking place in an atmosphere poisoned by the press.

This short-sighted view is based on the belief that the Project 2025 changes will be impossible to dislodge.  Why would modifying them be more difficult than reversing governing norms has been for Trump?  They may be leaving a legacy for the Democrats to exploit to the GOP’s disadvantage.

The media is fighting against Trump’s attempt to limit the public’s access to a free press.  Its resistance may awaken people to the importance of protecting their right to make up their own minds.

 

Campaign cash floods in, while gold moves out

 

Campaign cash floods in, while gold moves out

Gordon L. Weil

Political money mounts, funding falsehoods

The top tune of 2026 is the clink of campaign cash.  Billionaires and large corporations support candidates without limit so long as they are “independent” of the formal campaign.

The Supreme Court decided that spending money is free speech.  That means billionaires each get more speech than an average person.  It’s questionable if that’s what the First Amendment means.  The ruling transformed American politics, and each election sees new campaign contribution records.

Small contributions matter, but not much.   In Maine, Elon Musk’s money backs GOP Sen. Susan Collins, whose campaign funds top Democrat Troy Jackson’s.  In June, the Supreme Court allowed political parties to freely pour money into campaigns and has just cut their ad rates (!).  Trump’s PAC, after hoarding its cash, just committed to hundreds of millions for close races.

The obvious basis for political giving is that the candidate with more money is more likely to win.  That candidate has more to spend on television ads and direct mail, which make up the largest part of campaign spending.

Most voters likely form their opinions about candidates from the ads to which they are relentlessly exposed, not the debates watched by dedicated supporters.  Most ads these days consist of truncated truths or outright falsehoods about incumbents and challengers.  Money promotes myths that make winners.  Voters are victims.

But that’s not necessarily so, even if candidates keep asking for more.  In some campaigns, candidates win, though they are greatly outspent.  In other campaigns, contributors back safe candidates, ensuring their loyalty and giving them money to line up more backers.

Saturation may be the limiting factor.   Television time is fully committed.  Political mail readily becomes “junk mail.”  Lawn signs?    More money cannot be justified or it may even turn off some voters.  Money as speech may endure, but people may not like to be outshouted.

A message from the cellar

Deep beneath the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, gold bars are stored in bedrock vaults.  Most of this gold belongs to other countries, whose governments have long thought that the safest place for their gold, a part of their national currency reserves, was in the U.S.

The New York Fed does not control the gold; it only protects it.  Most nations with significant gold reserves, with the possible exception of the U.K., have kept some or all of their gold in the Fed’s vault.

But that is changing.  Germany keeps only about a third of its gold in the U.S.  France has taken its gold out of the Fed.  Last week, the Netherlands central bank announced it had moved its gold either back home or to London.  Other countries may be acting quietly.

Doubts grow about the U.S. as the world’s banker.  Trump attacks the independence of the Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank, reducing respect for the dollar as a reserve currency.  This week, the Norway state fund, the world’s largest, announced it is sharply reducing its U.S. Treasury holdings.

Trump exceeds understandings about the limits of power, weakening confidence in the Fed.  He might suddenly seize other countries’ most precious financial asset in retaliation for their not supporting his Iran war.   It seems safer to take the bars out of the Fed’s cellar.

AI and its limits

In the previous column, I mentioned a Wall Street Journal column by investor Stanley Druckenmiller.  A report about it suggested that the writer may have had the help of AI.

This was one more sign that AI is penetrating American life, potentially affecting important communications.  In several cases, courts have found that lawyers let AI draft a brief, which included citations to phony cases.  College students are having AI write papers for them, and professors must use AI review programs to search for AI.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the head of the city’s schools have blocked the use of AI by elementary school students.  “Children need teachers and human connection in order to learn and grow. They need to develop skills alongside their peers, build relationships with educators and wrestle with tough problems on their own,” said the mayor.

School chancellor Kamar Samuels noted, “We’re putting guardrails in place to protect the human connection, curiosity and creativity that help children grow.”

AI can usefully supplement human research, but these challenges suggest it should not be allowed to replace HI – human intelligence.   If it does, the country will end up with a population that is less educated, articulate and literate.  The AI-based jobs that will displace rote tasks may go unfilled for the lack of educated personnel.  Automatons won’t do.

AI could get out of control.  Government has a role in protecting people, not simply promoting data centers.

For the record, this column is neither written by nor edited by AI.  Its defects are all mine.