We Have the Right, right?

I considered placing this thread in the social issues and civil unrest forum since it deals with the rights of petition and assembly. However, in the context of this thread, those rights are in regard to political motivations reflecting usurpation of rights so I put the thread here in political issues.

It is my opinion that the original intent of the first amendment rights of petition and redress are being defined incorrectly (intentionally) and do not reflect the intent of the framers of our constitution. The spirit of the first amendment is to protect the citizen's rights to speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. Note that assembly and petition are two separate rights, not one. People may assemble for reasons other than a redress of rights and a person can seek redress of rights without assembling with others. In specific regard to assembly and petition, if you believe your rights are being usurped or disenfranchised you have the right to seek redress from government. If your government has run amok and is tyrannical in nature, asking them for help in removing themselves from office is counter-intuitive and unproductive at best. As such, it follows to reason that when government runs amok the right to assembly and petition includes acts the government may, and most likely will, consider illegal. (I have a hard time imagining government cheering on the citizens as they demand their oppressors be removed from office and applauding the legality of their endeavor.) This is the reason the word “peacefully” is stressed in this context. It limits the power of the petitioners.

While neither assembly nor petition is synonymous with speech, SCOTUS treats both as subsumed within an expansive speech right referred to as “freedom of expression.” Focusing singularly on the idea of speech undervalues the importance of providing independent protection to the remaining textual First Amendment rights, including assembly and petition, which are designed to serve distinctive ends. It should be noted that freedom of expression is a new term and is not textually a protected right.*

Assembly is the only First Amendment right that requires more than a lone individual for its exercise. Moreover, while some assemblies occur spontaneously, most do not. For this reason, the assembly right extends to preparatory activity leading up to the physical act of assembling, protections later recognized by SCOTUS as a distinct “right of association,” which does not appear in the text of the First Amendment. The right of assembly often involves non-verbal communication, perhaps most importantly, the message conveyed by the very existence of the group in the first place. In regards to the January 6 event, those same protected rights of preparatory activity are currently being described in court as, "Conspiracy to commit a felony."

The right to “petition the Government for redress of grievances” is among the oldest in our legal heritage, dating back 800 years to the Magna Carta, and receiving explicit protection in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, long before the American Revolution.

SCOTUS appears to be redefining The Bill of Rights such that the right to petition is all but deleted and rendered obsolete by the expansion of the Free Speech Clause. This is a dangerous and duplicitous stance for SCOTUS to take, especially when considering the fact that assembly and petition were meant to serve distinctly unique ends and lose their efficacy when lumped into the category of speech without special distinction. Once again, the framers of our Constitution made assembly and petition separate entities intentionally and did not imagine them to be merely afterthoughts to Free Speech. It was the right to petition, via the Declaration of Independence, that justified the American Revolution by noting that King George had repeatedly ignored petitions for redress of colonists' grievances. As such, legislatures from the Revolutionary period long into the nineteenth century deemed themselves duty-bound to consider and respond to petitions filed by the people.*

One of the risks of representative democracy is that elected officials may favor partisan interests of powerful supporters, or, simply choose to advance their own personal interests instead of serving as faithful agents of their constituents. This is why a robust, fully functioning, and recognized system of petition is such a valuable and necessary tool.

Another equally valuable tool is one that is rarely ever mentioned in modern society: The right of instruction. Through a right of instruction a majority of constituents can instruct a legislator to vote in a particular way while the right to petition only assures the constituents that government officials must receive arguments from members of the general public.

In Congress, and in virtually all 50 state legislatures, the right to petition has been reduced to a formality, with petitions routinely entered on the public record absent any obligation to debate the matters raised or even to respond to the petitioners. This openly defies the spirit of the law of the First Amendment. It should be clearly understood that, in regards to the right to petition a redress of rights, the concept of free speech (to government) implies that said speech shall be heard by government. It should also be clearly understood that the act of seeking redress of rights in and of itself implies a response to said petition is necessary.

The problem:
Incumbent legislatures have made it all but impossible to mount a credible challenge. *The right to petition can not even be explored unless SCOTUS frees the petition clause from its subservience to the Free Speech Clause. Any attempt to separate the two is characterized as an attempt to dissolve the First Amendment, making the petitioners appear to be the ones subverting the Constitution.

Our First Amendment rights are being eroded right before our eyes and the one method of addressing that erosion is the one suffering the most rapid and intentional decay. We are already at the point where our petitions need not be heard, only delivered. And we are not assured of any response or acknowledgment of any kind.

In other words: we have the right to pretend we have rights.

~ citing the National Constitution Center: Assembly, Petition, Speech, Association.

a reply to: Vroomfondel


Thank you Vroom!

Most of that is way over my head but I look forward to the discussion here.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Must be something in the water. Was having this discussion very recently.

When the legislature is passing laws in bulk. By the hundreds and at a momentum that far outpaces the ability to fully read and argue before voting them into law, we've lost redress. They are long onto something else as has the public forum.

So how can you begin to vote one out when they all do this?

Its not only the 1st ammendment either. We see this with guns, due process, eminent domain etc.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Must be something in the water. Was having this discussion very recently.

When the legislature is passing laws in bulk. By the hundreds and at a momentum that far outpaces the ability to fully read and argue before voting them into law, we've lost redress. They are long onto something else as has the public forum.

So how can you begin to vote one out when they all do this?

Its not only the 1st ammendment either. We see this with guns, due process, eminent domain etc.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Excellent analysis! I wish I could contribute more than that right now. I need more time to consider what you have written.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Right now I can sympathize with anyone who feels disenfranchised... I think that's a shared sentiment among a vast majority of Americans.

But I feel like we're letting the few misdirect us in our efforts to get some sort of meaningful discussion.

Now, I feel like the crux of your point is revolving around January 6th, so the rest of my response is under that context and assumption... I apologize in advance if the latter is a mistake on my part.

I think it's important we treat that instance with fairness, and refrain from using hyperbolic descriptions like insurrection or terrorism. Terms like that are harmful for citizens trying to perform their civic duty of involvement in the democracy we live in. Personally it's my opinion they went about it the wrong way, but that doesn't mean they should be charged with trumped up charges (pardon my pun).

I agree that freedom of speech, assembly, and expression are all in danger right now... But partisanship is putting blinders on much of the country to the point they only want to address very specific symptoms of the problem while ignoring most of the others or worse the root causes.

We could go on and on about how many different areas of concern there are, social media censorship, social reaction to any ideas/topics deemed wrong speak in any forum, and the most important IMO the DOJ response to some of this.

I think it's very important we all agree that we have to differentiate speech and actions. It's far easier to address the former as it's far more agreeable for all people. It's incredibly difficult to justify the legal or life changing retaliation for pure speech... Yet we see it, and have been for decades now. The most relevant I think would be the case of Assange. Unfortunately, with all the chaos it's easy for us to simply say that's not my problem. But we're starting to see the blood from the death by a thousand cuts.

I don't think there's a group in America and much of the western world who can't display an instance where they've felt the boots of authorities press down on them. And sadly, we let the establishment narrative divide us because we're told it's ______ group who's doing it to us. Democrats, Republicans, a specific race, a gender(s)... But at the end of the day I really think it just comes down to those who are in power or well connected and the rest of us. Because every time someone claims to be the distillation of their group and come to represent them offering salvation, they just prove it was all lip service and deliver status quo policies with a few pieces of scraps from the promised platform. Those scraps come with many times more steps back though.

Rights???

You ain' got no steenking rights, Essee!!

You ain' even got no lefts, vato!!

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Rights???

You ain' got no steenking rights, Essee!!

You ain' even got no lefts, vato!!

As long as I can have tacos for Christmas you all right!

a reply to: JinMI

Yes, it is certainly more than just the First. But the First is the one that is meant to give us a chance to seek redress for the others. No wonder its the first to get attacked this harshly.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well, this thread isn't dedicated specifically to January 6, though elements of that event and the response to it are certainly will within the realm of this discussion. I used one part of that as an example because it is fresh in people's minds and fit the subject matter perfectly. Characterize looting, arson, assault, rape, murder, etc, as peaceful protests. Then refer to people seeking a redress of rights regarding election integrity/transparency and they are called violent insurrectionists and the planning for the assembly is called conspiracy to commit a felony. And I don't recall our right to redress of grievances including steel barricades and the National Guard...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You're right on that. It was crazy to see them support wide spread riots and freak out when a protest got unruly.

Unfortunately we've just become a very reactive society. Instead of staying ahead of things we wait until something is a powder keg and just band aid little things here and there. Constantly putting out brush fires while a wild fire is raging.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I believe you have described the methodology correctly, but I also believe we have all underestimated the severity of the issue. Things have advanced much further much faster than anyone had anticipated. Things changed far too quickly.

As stated earlier, from the time of the revolutionary war and well into the nineteenth century government felt duty-bound to consider and respond to petitions filed by the people. Having the Revolutionary War firmly within living memory was a great reminder of what happens to government when it stops listening to the people. In today's USA government has no living memory of such events and fears nothing. Is redress of rights with no one listening still redress of rights? Or is it just a few citizens talking to themselves?

Imagine if this same concept occurred in our legal system. You have the right to defend yourself in court if you are accused of a crime. But what if the judge refuses to listen while you testify on your own behalf? What if the interpretation of your rights is that you can speak all you want, but no one has to actually listen? You speak. No one cares. Guilty.

No, we only think we do.

a reply to: Vroomfondel