First Amendment, third clause
"... or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.
There have been occasions when some members of the large protests condemning the murder of George Floyd have engaged in destruction of property and looting.
One could argue that this is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution if we use the kind of convoluted and dishonest metaphysics used the the US Supreme court when they found that a corporation was a person. We don't have to go outside of the law and use a ancillary comment to a lower court decision to justify this.
Rather, we could use the mangling of syntax used in Second Amendment arguments for the unrestricted arming of citizens.
The First Amendment states that the people have the right to "petition the Government". We can argue that destroying property and looting within the context of an otherwise peaceful gathering is a form of petition. A valid petition, after all, requires the attention of those being petitioned. If a petition were written on a piece of paper and submitted to a Government authority with the power to satisfy the petition's demands, but if that authority simply tears up the petition and burns it, can we say that that petition has any meaning?
Since the ultimate authority in our government is the people, a refusal to engage with a petition from the people is a refusal to obey one's superior.
It is obvious from the first two clauses of the First Amendment, that substantial actions are demanded of the Government by the Amendment: it says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging" religion, speech, writing (the press), or assembly and petition.
The conclusion we are trying to reach is that the act of petitioning includes and requires a response from the petitioned that the petition's demands be addressed, and that if acts of destruction and looting must occur before the petitioned responds to the petition, then those acts of destruction and looting become part of the petitioning process, and are therefore Constitutionally protected.
If this sounds ridiculous, then so does the assertion that anyone has the right to own and carry whatever firearms they wish, that corporations are people, and that money is speech are equally ridiculous. If money is "speech" then looting and burning is "petitioning".
There have been occasions when some members of the large protests condemning the murder of George Floyd have engaged in destruction of property and looting.
One could argue that this is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution if we use the kind of convoluted and dishonest metaphysics used the the US Supreme court when they found that a corporation was a person. We don't have to go outside of the law and use a ancillary comment to a lower court decision to justify this.
Rather, we could use the mangling of syntax used in Second Amendment arguments for the unrestricted arming of citizens.
The First Amendment states that the people have the right to "petition the Government". We can argue that destroying property and looting within the context of an otherwise peaceful gathering is a form of petition. A valid petition, after all, requires the attention of those being petitioned. If a petition were written on a piece of paper and submitted to a Government authority with the power to satisfy the petition's demands, but if that authority simply tears up the petition and burns it, can we say that that petition has any meaning?
Since the ultimate authority in our government is the people, a refusal to engage with a petition from the people is a refusal to obey one's superior.
It is obvious from the first two clauses of the First Amendment, that substantial actions are demanded of the Government by the Amendment: it says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging" religion, speech, writing (the press), or assembly and petition.
The conclusion we are trying to reach is that the act of petitioning includes and requires a response from the petitioned that the petition's demands be addressed, and that if acts of destruction and looting must occur before the petitioned responds to the petition, then those acts of destruction and looting become part of the petitioning process, and are therefore Constitutionally protected.
If this sounds ridiculous, then so does the assertion that anyone has the right to own and carry whatever firearms they wish, that corporations are people, and that money is speech are equally ridiculous. If money is "speech" then looting and burning is "petitioning".
posted by Godel at 1:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home