Nobody asked but …
Well, now we have another constitutional crisis. Presumably POTUS is acting within the scope of his constitutional authority. I mean, after all, didn’t he swear an oath to act within the constraints?
But now we are confronted again with the headscratcher, what does “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press; … ” mean? And can POTUS take any action that violates the letter of that clause.
I tend to be a very strict constructionist. Until we alter the wording by, and only by, the process afforded in the document itself, no one has the authority to change it. Words therein must be given their most exact reading.
Congress can make no laws abridging the freedom of the press, therefore any official action by government to abridge the same is outside the law. Likewise for gun control.
If wise persons were to determine that any dissemination of information needs to be controlled, then the constitution provides a clear path for amendment.
Please do not mistake this argument for advocacy. I remain with a jaundiced eye toward the press (media), I see that the Constitution demonstrates its flaws from moment to moment, and I think it is clear that government is a shambles. But the Constitution is what it is.
— Kilgore Forelle