1) Is a rule abridging speech by members of the public at an open public meeting of a city government a presumptively unconstitutional content-based speech regulation under the 1st Amendment if it does not also apply to 'staff' and government invite speakers when the justification for distinction between public and non-public speakers is that 'staff' and invite speakers are experts, while public speakers just create "the potential for endless discussion" [Appendix , pages 38-39] - i.e. that the public speaker's "speech is not worth it" United States v. Stevens 559 US 460, (2010)?

2) Does a state court have the power to cure a facially unconstitutional speech regulation of its 1st Amendment infirmities by rewriting it to constitutional standards, or, do separation of powers - the constitutional order that requires the legislature to legislate and the judiciary to adjudicate - bar not just the federal court from rewriting such a law (Stevens 559 US at), but also the state courts. Ask alternatively, can a state court make a facially unconstitutional state law into a facially constitutional one without ever changing the statute's face?

Is a rule abridging speech by members of the public at an open public meeting of a city government a presumptively unconstitutional content-based speech regulation under the 1st Amendment if it does not also apply to 'staff' and government invite speakers when the justification for distinction between public and non-public speakers is that 'staff' and invite speakers are experts, while public speakers just create 'the potential for endless discussion'?