Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 3 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (5 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   7 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

An Affront to the First Amendment: SCOTUS Prohibits Peaceful Demonstrations On Its Property

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   Well Said 3   News 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 9/10/13

- Advertisement -
By Keyan Bliss

As activists and court observers anxiously awaited the controversial rulings regarding the Voting Rights Act and the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 this past June, the Supreme Court quietly issued a new regulation that prohibits demonstrations and protests on its federal property. The stated purpose is to "maintain suitable order and decorum within the Supreme Court building and grounds." But to activists upset with the Court's gutting of a key piece of civil rights legislation designed to enfranchise millions of voters, the regulation represents a naked attempt to bar any public dissent against the Court's decision from being visible to the tenured justices presiding within.

The new policy was established in response to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declaring a law passed by Congress in 1949, which prohibited demonstrations on US Supreme Court grounds, to be "unconstitutional" in a case filed by the Rutherford Institute on behalf of Harold Hodge. Hodge was arrested in January 2011 for wearing a sign protesting the treatment of minorities by law enforcement. Judge Beryl L. Howell determined the law was "unreasonable, substantially overbroad and irreconcilable with the First Amendment." This wasn't the first time this law was questioned, as the Court itself declared elements to be in violation of the First Amendment in United States v. Grace in 1983. The Court nullified the law's ban on displays on public sidewalks around its building, but refused to declare the entire law unconstitutional.

The Court's decision to ban First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and speak on its grounds is only one example of an unprecedented effort by the federal government to restrict public dissent of its policies, and it serves to highlight the ever-growing disconnect between themselves and the vast majority of the American public. Just two days after Occupy Wall Street's encampment in Zuccotti Park was violently dispersed by police, Congress unanimously passed the Federal Restricted Grounds and Improvement Act to amend federal statute regarding protests on federal property by imposing criminal penalties on anyone who enters federal buildings or grounds without lawful authority. Now such grassroots protests can see their participants facing up to 10 years in prison for "willfully and knowingly" entering any restricted area or disrupting any government functions, regardless of their intent or the peaceful nature of such gatherings. And while the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new law would only apply to "a relatively small number of offenders," they also acknowledge it would "modify and expand current law regarding protests on certain federal property" to allow federal, state, and local authorities to prosecute cases they would otherwise be unable to do.

Even as our government tries to suppress the rights of ordinary people, it continues to defend and expand the rights and privileges of corporate businesses. Just this year the Court protected the Monsanto Corporation's patented seeds when they ruled in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. that patent exhaustion does not permit farmers to reproduce those seeds through natural processes without their approval. The Court also protected Wal-Mart from a class-action lawsuit in Wal-Mart v. Dukes by denying class-action status to over one million Wal-Mart employees who accused the big-box chain of gender discrimination in pay and promotion benefits, stating the plaintiffs did not have a "common claim" for which class-action status was justified. And who can forget the infamous ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, where the Court established a new precedent by granting First Amendment rights to artificial entities such as corporations, nonprofit organizations, and unions.

With such a clear pattern of preferential treatment being displayed in the policy decisions of Congress and the judgments of the Court, it is hard to blame the people outraged by these events for wanting to publicly dissent against those making the decisions. The First Amendment guarantees the people the right to speak freely, peacefully assemble, and petition their government for a redress of grievances. It is a fundamental liberty necessary for the growth and improvement of any democratic system of governance. Somewhere along the way, the Supreme Court forgot this principle and discerned that artificial entities are more deserving of this right than real people.

If the American public cannot depend on the Court to objectively interpret the Constitution, the only solution is to amend the Constitution. The Move to Amend Coalition proposes the "We the People" Amendment to unequivocally state that corporations are not real people entitled to inherent Constitutional rights and that money is not a form of protected political speech, which was introduced in Congress as House Joint Resolution 29 earlier this year. Learn more and sign the petition at MovetoAmend.org .


Keyan Bliss is a graduate of Indiana University, where he majored in political science. He is currently a field organizer and communications intern for the Move to Amend Coalition.

- Advertisement -

 

http://movetoamend.org

The Move to Amend Coalition is a grassroots campaign to amend the Constitution to state that artificial entities such as corporations, unions, and non-profits do not have inherent rights under the Constitution, and that money is not free speech so (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Follow the Trillions (If You Can)

SCOTUS has gone rogue

In the Absence of Accountability, General Motors Kills Hundreds of People for Profit

Private Spooks and Corporate Persons: The American Experiment Takes a Hit

Keystone XL Pipeline: Just Another Major Abuse of Corporate Power

Corporate Shock and Awe Campaign is Obliterating Public Education

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 people are discussing this page, with 7 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Will this be the straw that breaks the camel's bac... by Move to Amend on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:36:47 AM
It is this Court that did it.And, by the way, do t... by BFalcon on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:23:21 AM
Excellent question about jurisdiction.  The a... by George Flower on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:34:53 AM
A court that refuses to enforce, or even acknowled... by Richard Pietrasz on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:50:32 PM
Like BFalcon suggests, proposing an amendment is u... by George Flower on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:27:45 AM
My only suggestion about this well-written article... by Anna Van Z on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:03:51 PM
This advertisement for a professional activist org... by George Flower on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:24:48 AM