Alabama is setting up a nice test case for the Supreme Court:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press."
1. Is The AL restriction on press credentials a law? Yes. The power to make restrictions is established by law, and this particular restriction is a manifestation of that law.
2. Applies to the states under the well-established doctrine of incorporation.
3. Can the legislature define ?press? as it wishes for purposes of compliance with the First Amendment, or is this concept independently established as part of the meaning and requirements of the Constitution? Clearly the latter, again according to well established constitutional jurisprudence.
[Note that 3 is where orthodox Islam made its violently enforced escape from the Ten Commandments. Any killing not in defense of self or others is murder and is barred by the 6th Commandment. Killing over insult, or killing those who want out of the religion, is not killing in self-defense and is hence murder. Orthodox Islam pretends it can escape this restriction simply by defining killing over insult as lawful, but no, they can?t change the definition of murder under the 6th Commandment so logically this fails and, if the God of the Jews (who Muhammad claimed to speak for) actually exists, then all orthodox Muslims are going to burn in hell forever.]
4. Is the concept of ?the press? referenced by the Constitution abridged by limiting it to salaried news organization employees dedicated primarily to covering the state legislature? Oh yeah.
Please do pitch this softball to SCOTUS, while the nation prays that they are not AWOL again.
They aren't going to do anything to stop the jihadists from immigrating and living off welfare while they plot mass murder, and they certainly aren't going to do anything to get rid of the jihadists who have already immigrated and are living on welfare plotting mass murder, they are just going to try to sweep the problem under the rug by ending free speech. They will try to stop the mass-murder-plotters from plotting openly, as they have been, and they will come down particularly hard on those who point out the mass-murder plotting. Count on it.
ALL unions should be illegal. No other sellers of a product are allowed to collude on price and sellers of labor should not be an exception, but allowing government workers to unionize is far worse because it fundamentally violates the first principle of our republican form of government (guaranteed in the Article IV section 4 guarantee to the states that they shall have a republican form of government).
The first principle of republicanism, as stated by Alexander Hamilton at the New York constitutional debates, is that the people shall choose who is to represent them. In other words, we have to be able to "throw the bums out," but unionized workers cannot be thrown out. Their union status grants them privleges vis a vis their employer, the American People, and that is fundamentally unrepublican, and in fact is a violation of the Constitution.