Fadiman: Next question is from Mr H. Lewis of St Louis, a two-part question having to do with some of the laws of our country. In the Constitution or its amendments, what prevents a state from interfering with freedom of speech or press? That's the first part of the question. Mr Levant? Levant: The Bill of Rights. Maverick interjects. Fadiman: Mr Maverick? Maverick: The Billl of Rights has no reference to a state doing that. That's a popular misconception. Levant [sotto voce]: Well, I'm popular anyway. Maverick: The 14th Amendment refers to Due Process of Law, and the Supreme Court wrote that into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee freedom of speech as against a state or a city. Fadiman: So nothing prevents a state from interfering with freedom of speech or press. Now Mr Levant, you're perfectly right except you're on the wrong side. Levant: He said it was a popular misconception, which I represent. Fadiman: Very nice job of representing the public here, Mr Levant. Nevertheless,I think we'll have to count us wrong on that. [By the rules of Info Please, the first-spoken answer must be right.] Fadiman: Second part of the question. What in the Constitution or its amendments again, allows the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional? Mr Levant, would you like to come in on that, or... Levant: No, I'm through. Fadiman: Mr Maverick, you had your hand up. Mav: There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the right to declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional. John Marshall was the first one to enunciate that doctrine; that was just DONE by the Supreme Court. They arrogated or assumed that right, so that's how they got it. Fad: That's perfect, that's perfect.