Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,206
    Thanks (Given)
    5230
    Thanks (Received)
    5014
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default The Right to Assemble, or Not

    The first amendment to the Constitution states this:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    The part I want to discuss is this:

    ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

    The Constitution does not address where, or how limited an area, the people have the right to assemble. Should this right also extend to the exclusion of those who do not fit into the pre-defined purpose of the assemblance? If not, why not?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,893
    Thanks (Given)
    4180
    Thanks (Received)
    4524
    Likes (Given)
    1412
    Likes (Received)
    1065
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perianne View Post
    The Constitution does not address where, or how limited an area, the people have the right to assemble. Should this right also extend to the exclusion of those who do not fit into the pre-defined purpose of the assemblance? If not, why not?
    Ward v. Rock Against Racism(1989) held that time, place, or manner restrictions must:[12]
    • Be content neutral
    • Be narrowly tailored
    • Serve a significant governmental interest
    • Leave open ample alternative channels for communication
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...r_restrictions

    The Supreme Court confronted the right to petition and its cognate, the right of assembly, in United States v. Cruikshank (1876), declaring that the right was "an attribute of national citizenship." In Hague v. CIO (1939), members of the Court debated whether the right as applied against states resided in the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause or, as later cases concluded, in the amendment's Due Process Clause. The rights to petition and to peaceable assembly were also crucial in persuading the Supreme Court to hold that the First Amendment implicitly contains a right to expressive association, that is, a right to associate to engage in the activities protected by the First Amendment. The right of expressive association protected civil rights protesters from hostile state action in the 1950s and 1960s, and, after the Court's 2000 decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, also protects private groups that wish to promote traditional ideals and values. To a large extent, then, the rights to petition and peaceable assembly have found their modern home in the right to expressive association.
    http://www.heritage.org/constitution...y-and-petition

    Who do you want to keep out?
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  3. Thanks Perianne thanked this post
  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,206
    Thanks (Given)
    5230
    Thanks (Received)
    5014
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Who do you want to keep out?
    The links you provided were to SCOTUS rulings. But of course I suppose that is all we have to go by, or rather, it is what we have to live by.

    Let us say a group of Jews are wanting to assemble a neighborhood that promotes their values and lifestyles. Should they not be able to prevent racist White Nationalists from joining their neighborhood?

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,505
    Thanks (Given)
    23714
    Thanks (Received)
    17273
    Likes (Given)
    9550
    Likes (Received)
    6006
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perianne View Post
    The links you provided were to SCOTUS rulings. But of course I suppose that is all we have to go by, or rather, it is what we have to live by.

    Let us say a group of Jews are wanting to assemble a neighborhood that promotes their values and lifestyles. Should they not be able to prevent racist White Nationalists from joining their neighborhood?
    No. No more than the KKK could keep the Jews from protesting one of their rallies or parades.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    13,988
    Thanks (Given)
    8494
    Thanks (Received)
    15307
    Likes (Given)
    3307
    Likes (Received)
    3829
    Piss Off (Given)
    27
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475184

    Default

    I'm in favor of using water cannons on hippie gatherings. Unwashed masses in a small area is a health hazard and a little water at 400 PSI will do all of them good.



    Plus, there's the additional economical benefit of keeping those police riot trucks clean.


    Okay, I'm done being a smartass. For now.
    Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

  7. Thanks Jeff, Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  8. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,206
    Thanks (Given)
    5230
    Thanks (Received)
    5014
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    No. No more than the KKK could keep the Jews from protesting one of their rallies or parades.
    I am not saying about what they could do, I am asking opinions about what they should be able to do. While the despicable Westboro Baptist Church has the "right" to protest military funerals, I am just not sure they should be able to do it. I suspect 150 years ago they would not have come away alive by such actions. The U.S. Constitution was essentially the same then as it is now, so why have things changed?

    @Drummond, please weigh in as your country has also changed.
    Last edited by Perianne; 02-09-2016 at 09:06 AM.

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,893
    Thanks (Given)
    4180
    Thanks (Received)
    4524
    Likes (Given)
    1412
    Likes (Received)
    1065
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perianne View Post
    The links you provided were to SCOTUS rulings. But of course I suppose that is all we have to go by, or rather, it is what we have to live by.

    Let us say a group of Jews are wanting to assemble a neighborhood that promotes their values and lifestyles. Should they not be able to prevent racist White Nationalists from joining their neighborhood?
    You asked a Constitution question and SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Nevertheless I assume these folks have some control over who they let live there.

    Masada II Condo Corp

    Who do you want to keep out?
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  10. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,206
    Thanks (Given)
    5230
    Thanks (Received)
    5014
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    You asked a Constitution question and SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Nevertheless I assume these folks have some control over who they let live there.

    Masada II Condo Corp


    Who do you want to keep out?
    Quit trying to bait me, sir. I don't want to keep any good people "out".

  11. Thanks Drummond, Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  12. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,893
    Thanks (Given)
    4180
    Thanks (Received)
    4524
    Likes (Given)
    1412
    Likes (Received)
    1065
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perianne View Post
    Quit trying to bait me, sir. I don't want to keep any good people "out".
    It's a simple question inquiring as to the basis for your question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Perianne View Post
    ... I am asking opinions about what they should be able to do.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  13. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,505
    Thanks (Given)
    23714
    Thanks (Received)
    17273
    Likes (Given)
    9550
    Likes (Received)
    6006
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perianne View Post
    I am not saying about what they could do, I am asking opinions about what they should be able to do. While the despicable Westboro Baptist Church has the "right" to protest military funerals, I am just not sure they should be able to do it. I suspect 150 years ago they would not have come away alive by such actions. The U.S. Constitution was essentially the same then as it is now, so why have things changed?

    @Drummond, please weigh in as your country has also changed.
    Personally believe that following the Constitution is a very good idea. You posted the first amendment, one that doesn't require a JD degree to understand.

    In no way does exercising one's rights guarantee that there will not be repercussions when unpopular. I'm pretty certain that flag burners have been roughed up and the attackers given warnings or very minimum punishments. To a real degree, the consequences depend on the community and the ideas/actions brought to bear.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  14. Thanks fj1200, Nukeman thanked this post
  15. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perianne View Post
    The links you provided were to SCOTUS rulings. But of course I suppose that is all we have to go by, or rather, it is what we have to live by.

    Let us say a group of Jews are wanting to assemble a neighborhood that promotes their values and lifestyles. Should they not be able to prevent racist White Nationalists from joining their neighborhood?
    I'm tempted to get involved in this discussion, so I will. However .. I'm on shaky ground. You're discussing your Constitution, and as I'm British, I won't have the familiarity with this that Americans would have. So I believe I don't have a great deal of substance to offer on this particular occasion.

    But I think that it might be appropriate to offer a note of caution.

    Who it is who constitutes 'good people' is, arguably, in the eye of the beholder. Some neighbourhoods would consider Muslims 'good people' .. especially Lefties, who are hell-bent on being as politically correct as possible, AND ensuring that everybody else is, too.

    I think that an argument saying that Jews should be allowed to assemble a neighbourhood that promotes their values and lifestyles, and have any powers of exclusion at all ... is one setting a precedent that opens the door for Muslims to do exactly the same. Indeed .. over here in the UK, we already have Muslim communities where this has effectively happened.

    It isn't that any Muslim community, here, has any actual power to actually 'exclude' anybody .. but, there are shades of grey involved. Any such community can ensure that conditions apply which would make any 'outsider' trying to move in as being certifiably nuts ...

    So, no, Perianne. Your proposal sets a precedent that, I assure you, Muslims wouldn't hesitate to exploit for themselves. To what extent ?

    As for FJ's baiting, and his question of who you'd want to keep out .. I take it that this is FJ exercising a bit of Leftie-inspired PC thinking, and insisting that it becomes dominant in this discussion ?

    Can't have even the possibility come about of anyone thinking in an unapproved-of way, eh, FJ, 'old chum' .. ??
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  16. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  17. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,206
    Thanks (Given)
    5230
    Thanks (Received)
    5014
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    So, no, Perianne. Your proposal sets a precedent that, I assure you, Muslims wouldn't hesitate to exploit for themselves. To what extent ?
    I must ask why you think it would be a bad thing for them to pack themselves away into a rat hole somewhere? @Drummond
    Last edited by Perianne; 02-09-2016 at 02:51 PM.

  18. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,505
    Thanks (Given)
    23714
    Thanks (Received)
    17273
    Likes (Given)
    9550
    Likes (Received)
    6006
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    I'm wondering if the OP recognized the semi-colons between each right?


    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    The right to 'assemble' is regarding the ability to do so and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    They didn't include this in the Bill of Rights for securing the rights just for getting together for a barn raising or family picnic. They weren't concerned that the government would step in to prevent them from meeting for a dance or school or gathering crops.

    They were concerned that the government might step in to prevent them from meeting to discuss or plan issues they disagreed with regarding problems or disagreements between themselves and the government.

    That is where the right to march, protest, etc comes in. That is one reason the first is so important.

    It should not be confused with some way to justify segregation.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  19. Thanks Abbey Marie thanked this post
  20. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perianne View Post
    I must ask why you think it would be a bad thing for them to pack themselves away into a rat hole somewhere? @Drummond
    @Perianne .. I don't believe I said that it would be ??

    Our experience is that Muslims move into a neighbourhood, then proceed to 'dominate' it. Mosques spring up. You might get a Sharia court thrown in for good measure. The local shops get bought up, either by Muslims, or those seeing an opportunity to cater to their needs. Before you know where you are, they're aiming to make themselves THE dominant influence in the area they've chosen for themselves. We've even had instances of posters springing up, declaring an area a 'Sharia Controlled Zone' (even though, legally, nobody is permitted to create such a thing).

    Oh, and in Birmingham, they tried to take over some of the schools in that city.

    I'm not aware that they've ever moved to a 'rat hole', or that there's ever been a likelihood of it. They're way too ambitious for that. [Though they may well want that for everyone else, maybe with wall to wall bombs ....]

    As an aside .. the BBC made a big thing, just days ago, of - as they claimed - 'Mosques opening their doors to outsiders'. Apparently, if I recall correctly, this is a phenomenon that Muslims indulge in, once a year.

    So, according to the story, double the number opened up to outsiders this year, than previously. An estimated NINETY mosques in the UK, in fact.

    That's out of (another estimate, because, who can keep up with these things ?) around ONE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY OF THEM, IN TOTAL.

    'Impressive', eh ..?
    Last edited by Drummond; 02-09-2016 at 08:29 PM.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  21. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  22. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,505
    Thanks (Given)
    23714
    Thanks (Received)
    17273
    Likes (Given)
    9550
    Likes (Received)
    6006
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    I don't believe I said that it would be ??

    Our experience is that Muslims move into a neighbourhood, then proceed to 'dominate' it. Mosques spring up. You might get a Sharia court thrown in for good measure. The local shops get bought up, either by Muslims, or those seeing an opportunity to cater to their needs. Before you know where you are, they're aiming to make themselves THE dominant influence in the area they've chosen for themselves. We've even had instances of posters springing up, declaring an area a 'Sharia Controlled Zone' (even though, legally, nobody is permitted to create such a thing).

    Oh, and in Birmingham, they tried to take over some of the schools in that city.

    I'm not aware that they've ever moved to a 'rat hole'. They're way too ambitious for that. [Though they may well want that for everyone else ....]
    We agree on this. The whole concept of 'no go' areas is a result of the allowing of this segregation.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums