NO FRIEND OF THE CONSTITUTION CLINTON'S WORDS, ACTS FLY IN THE FACE OF HIS PLEDGE TO PROTECT FIRST AMENDMENT.(MAIN)

Byline: ROBYN E. BLUMNER

When Bill Clinton took the presidential oath of office, promising to ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,'' he must have had his fingers crossed. He may know the Constitution, but he certainly doesn't let it get in his way.

The most recent example is his crusade against liquor advertising. The President called on the Federal Communication Commission to investigate the effects of liquor advertising on children, implying he may use the power of his office to get the industry to quit hawking their product over the airwaves.

Although he stopped short of calling for an advertising ban, he leveled a veiled threat by saying it is time to ``move urgently to save parents, young people, and our nation from the unavoidable bad consequences of liquor advertising on television.'' One thing he didn't mention was the First Amendment.

This new speech battle comes on the heels of a number of high-profile criticisms of Clinton's constitutional record.

In a recent New York Times commentary, noted civil liberties lawyer Floyd Abrams presented a case study of Clinton's utter disdain for the First Amendment. And the libertarian CATO Institute just issued a policy analysis, titled ``Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton,'' that is replete with examples of Clinton and his Justice Department riding roughshod over some of our most precious freedoms.

For Clinton, a former constitutional law professor and Democrat (although some would say that is former too), his willingness to be guided by political expediency alone is just his idea of winning the game. To those of us who put him in office, it is nothing short of ideological treason.

In addition to his disregard for free speech, Clinton has supported warrantless searches of public housing residences, drug testing of high school athletes without any suspicion of their drug use, and the use of roving FBI wiretaps without a court order.

Clinton has signed into law legislation that strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear claims of rights violations by immigrants and prisoners, both marginal populations with virtually no political power.

And his Justice Department argued before the Supreme Court that a criminal defendant could be sentenced for crimes of which he was acquitted.

One would be hard-pressed to find a fundamental constitutional right that Clinton has not attacked either legislatively or in the courts.

However, this creeping shift of power from the people to the President is not by willful design but by benign neglect. His policies are made by situational response without regard for principles. Combine this with Clinton's innate paternalism and the result is devastating for freedom.

In addition to his strike against liquor ads, the Clinton Justice Department has sought to limit the speech of beer companies. Appearing before the Supreme Court, government attorneys defended federal regulations prohibiting the display of alcohol content on beer cans with the feeble argument that people would be encouraged to drink beer with high alcohol content if such information were available.

The court didn't buy it. Justice John Paul Stevens cautioned, ``The Constitution is most skeptical of supposed state interests that seek to keep people in the dark for what the government believes to be their own good.''

Clinton picks his battles by targeting despised groups and industries. It's no surprise, then, that tobacco companies top that list.

In 1995, he demanded regulations limiting magazine cigarette ads to black-and-white text where children are part of the readership, and prohibiting tobacco companies from using brand names in the sponsorship of sporting events. Such summary power over speech, even over that of bad-guy tobacco, is shiveringly excessive.

This year he went after pornographers, with the Justice Department arguing before the Supreme Court that legislation censoring the Internet to protect children from indecency was constitutional.

The administration vigorously defended this repressive law even though the high court has consistently struck down censorship schemes which, in the name of protecting children, condemn adults to reading only what is suitable for youngsters.

But this ``child-watch'' moralism has pervaded Clinton's tenure. He strong-armed the television industry into establishing a rating system for his V-chip program. Then he forced all television manufacturers to be accessories to his scheme by having Congress legislate the V-chip protocol for all new sets.

Rather than use persuasion, Clinton exploits his executive regulatory powers to their fullest. When the President called for more educational television for children, the FCC responded with new regulations that required stations to carry a certain quota of such government-approved programming.

And the administration has continued to support radio broadcast restrictions that limit ``indecent'' speech to between midnight and 6 a.m. so that no children may inadvertently hear one of George Carlin's seven dirty words.

Clinton seems to think he is not only mayor of every town but parent of every child. A new term should be added to our lexicon: An ``Arkansas Presidency'' is one that compensates for its general lack of direction with an overabundance of simplistic and nosy directives, doing more damage to freedom than good for the country. Like Mother Goose with police powers.

Clinton is a perfect example of why those of us concerned about liberty have to be most on our guard when ``friends'' occupy seats of power. Since he entered the White House, that seat is looking more and more like a throne.

Robyn E. Blumner is director of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. She wrote this article for the St. Petersburg Times.