we can say goodbye to a free press. I don't think it will be, but we need to be awake and aware.

RESIST!

I think they have winnable cases.

throughout his adult life to solve his problems. For someone who hates the courts so much, he certainly has used them to his advantage.

They really need to take some middle school civics classes.
They would never get 2/3 of House or 2/3 of Senate and never ever get 3/4 of the states.

And then the law would apply to his successor and drumpf would be shit out of luck.

It's OK to lie about Obama. But telling the truth about Trump is bad.

telling the truth.

They live in a fantasy world where they are all victims and every one their problems are the fault of libruls, brown people and women.

Oh, and Democrats.

Take him down now...Media do your job..

Such a law would be the death of Brietbart and the rest of the fake news outlets and even challenge Fox News.

Sean Hannity alone would be sued into bankruptcy and take the network down with him.

Like Nixon, he fantasizes himself as above the law an thinks he would not be subject to the same (unconstitutional) laws.

They just want to be able to keep saying "lying press" every time something embarrassing is discovered, so they'll keep saying they need to be able to take the media to court.

Of course it will be overturned by the courts, but what else is new.

Karl said. “Is he really going to pursue that?”

The NY Times should sue Trump for libel and slander. Trump has accused the Times of lying, which is defamation and could hurt their reputation and business. The Times would win.

The NY Times is not the arbiter of truth. Rather, they push false equivalency as journalism.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/30/media/new-york-times-climate-change/

A new columnist at The New York Times and his views on climate change have prompted some readers to cancel their subscriptions in protest.

In his first column for the Times, Bret Stephens said advocates for climate policy can take a lesson from Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign and her reliance on data to predict the election.

"We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris," Stephens wrote. "Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong."

* * *
Scientists also joined the fray. Stefan Rahmstorf, a climatologist and professor of physics at Potsdam University in Germany, posted a letter he wrote to the Times that said Stephens' views "run counter to all evidence." "He is simply repeating falsehoods spread by various 'think tanks' funded by the fossil fuel industry," Rahmstorf said.

That's not the position of the NY Times. The Times itself supports the science. They did screw up by hiring a conservative who needs to misinform or twist the truth to make his point. They feel the need to balance the truth with a right-wing spin on the truth.

...while giving a platform to someone who pushes false science. This is not just spin. This is enabling quackery. I can understand having commentators disagree on their opinions, but giving a podium for folks to just make shit up?

He can't even get legislation through Congress and they're looking into a constitutional amendment?!

Rinse, you're empty threats are just that....empty.....like your head.

Trump can stomp his little feet all he wants, but America's defamation laws are state laws, not federal laws. Although the defamation laws are virtually the same from state to state, they are entirely the product of state legislation, not federal legislation; Congress, however submissive to Trump it may be, cannot do much to change those laws to please him.

And getting some states - but not others - to change their laws, so that states have very different defamation laws is going to create serious problems for journalists, authors, and publishers - not just for critics of Trump but for anyone who says an unkind word about almost anything. The Church of Scientology, for example, makes a point of knowing the difference in the defamation laws among different countries - and suing critics where it's least hospitable.

Giving Trump what he wants would create problems for everyone else in the long run.

Like they do in Russia?