Replies

So you are of the belief that the 1A is subject to interpretation by the courts? That is, if 50.1% agree to enact certain limitations, we're all good, right?

Those are two completely different things. Of course the First Amendment is subject to interpretation by the Courts. That has nothing to do with majority rule.

Suppose a few hundred protestors decided to link hands across all the bridges/tunnels leading into/out of Manhatten (all public property), blocking traffic, and singing songs. Maybe they decide to set up camp right across those highways.

Is there First Amendment right to "Assemble" completely unlimited, with no exceptions? Because if that's the case, then courts and police would be violating the Constitution to break those assemblages, even if they're on roads. because after all, the Constitution doesn't contain a right of assmbly limitation for roads on its face, does it? New Yorkers would be trapped.

On the other hand, if you think those protests would not be protected by the First Amendment, what is the basis for that opinion? From where in the Constitution would the courts get the right to order those particular protests to disperse?

Either the courts have the power to make such judgment calls, or they don't.

Of course the First Amendment is subject to interpretation by the Courts.

You guys really like taking a losing position, don't you? Who said the 1A is subject to interpretation by the Courts? Marshall in 1803?

That has nothing to do with majority rule. Sure it does - a majority elects representatives, who along with others, pass laws restricting core Constitutional rights. In this case, a minority of dirty hippies, leftists and other malcontents now need to "follow the law" governing the 1A.

As an earlier poster noted (finally thank G_d), the core issue is "peaceable". Is purposely blocking traffic by linking hands "peaceable"? Of is the sheer number of people overflowing into streets "not peaceable", and therefore in need of some serious hand banging to 'follow the law'?

I'll say it once more, because I'd like to see conservatives come out on the right side of this issue, but we should be paying attention to these movements. Anyone foolishly supporting arbitrary restrictions is simply giving cover to other restrictions, such as the 2nd and 4th. (Or do people here like TSA booty calls?)

I think the most important word in the 1A is the first word. It is specifically limiting Congress’ powers. Not the powers of NYC or Oakland. Not even the powers of NY or Ca. So if Oakland rejected the permit outright for the protest, it would not be in violation of the Constitution as written. In fact, arguing that any city is cracking down on 1A rights is in and of itself extra Constitutionial.

On the same token, the 2A specifically does not mention which body it applies to.