To the Reader:
Did you know that when ACLU attorneys will file their brief against the Communications Decency Act of 1996, that brief (so-called) will probably be tens of thousands of words long, even though it only needs (in theory) to be 25 words long, something like this:
The Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional because it is a law passed by Congress that abridges the freedom of speech, in violation of the First Amendment.
Did you also know that when ACLU attorneys argue against the Act, that
they will only object to certain provisions of the Act (e.g. those
that deal with "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech),
even though there are several other provisions in the Act abridging speech?
Did you know that if First Amendment attorneys in general did not proceed as above, their clients could sue them for malpractice?
Would the Real First Amendment Please Stand up?
attempts to blast into smithereens the following syllogism:
1) Every amendment to the Constitution not itself formally amended has legal force and effect.
2) The 1791 First Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution which has not been formally amended, therefore
3) The 1791 First Amendment has legal force and effect.
As you shall discover after reading this work in its entirety, the seemingly irrefutable conclusion of this syllogism turns out to be, on closer examination, highly suspect.
Would the Real First Amendment Please Stand up? was inspired, in part, by Thomas Ladanyi's The 1987 Constitution, a noble attempt to put the Supreme Court's revisions of the Constitution into a form the layperson can understand. The immediate book both justifies, clarifies, and otherwise illuminates that attempt.