I agree with almost all of Mike Ramsey's discussion of how the First Amendment restricts the judiciary and executive.
But at the end of his post, Mike seems to admit that self enforcing treaties — treaties that do not require Congress to pass implementing legislation — would not be restricted by the First Amendment. Perhaps he is correct, but I am not so sure.
Here is another possibility. A treaty requires ratification by the Senate. And the Senate is part of Congress. Therefore, the Senate cannot ratify a treaty that violates the First Amendment.
A similar result would apply to actions by a single house that abridge the freedom of speech. For example, if the House were to use its inherent contempt power in a way that violated the freedom of speech, one might argue that the First Amendment would preclude this, because the House is part of the Congress.
I do not claim this is the only way to read the Treaty Clause and the First Amendment. It is possible that the First Amendment could be read only to restrict the Congress acting as a whole. But it is also quite possible that the First Amendment applies to the separate actions of the House.
Posted at 8:00 AM