I invite my fellow progressives / leftists to please feel free to vote me off the Island for saying the following, but ... in the interest of fairness, it should be said that acting AG Matthew Whitaker is right in a certain sense about Marbury v. Madison. To be sure, Matthew Whitaker is indeed a crackpot, and his own utterances, both written and spoken, amply justify that description. But let's be fair to broken clocks: even they are right twice a day. (The full text of Marbury can be found here; a very literate, enlightening, and even-handed summary, here.) The Constitution’s Article III is rather ambiguous, not about the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but about how “hard-coded” that original jurisdiction is in the Constitution. There are two questions at issue.
The third pillar of the First Amendment's temple of liberty is the "abridgement" clause: ... freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The "abridgement" clause comprises three distinct but intimately related parts: freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.
-- Freedom of the press
Freedom of the press is arguably the area in which the United States is distinct from all other nations in the latitude permitted the press, electronic and otherwise, in the dissemination of opinions. It is true enough that virtually all other nations, especially those whose ideological DNA can be traced back to the 18th-century European Enlightenment, have free media, a
The second Pillar of the First Amendment’s temple is …
o The “free exercise” clause
… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
Compared to both the linguistic subtleties of the “free exercise” clause and the consequent intricacies of the corresponding case law, the language of the “establishment clause” is as transparently simple as “Row, row, row your boat”. This exponential increase in complexity and subtlety is due to the fact that, whereas the “establishment” clause pertains only to government action vis a vis religious institutions, teachings, and doctrine, the “free exercise” clause pertains to the myriad ways in which the exercise of religion impinges, not only upon prerogatives of the government, but also upon those of individuals and groups.