Political Activism

[BmorePat87]

(03-10-2017, 09:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You might want to bring this point up with Matt as we were having a discussion earlier in the week and he asserted that everything in the Constitution is someone's interpretation. Of course he may not be the staunch Constitutionalist that you are. He may think it's a living document open to interpretation. 

Personally I feel folks are free to assemble until that assembly starts infringing on the rights of others to assemble or endangers the public safety. Apparently you disagree with the "feeling". Who knows, perhaps it will be challenged in the courts one day. As we know not only do government have the responsibility to protect the Freedom to Assemble they also have the responsibility to keep the peace.  

The debate surrounding the 1st Amendment isn't WHO it protects freedom of expression from, it's HOW much of your freedom of expression is protected from the government. Besides the fact that the text specifically states the Congress is the body being restricted, we have historical evidence from Madison and all of those involved in the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that these protections were added because there needed to be a guarantee that the government could not infringe upon these rights. 

I guess someone can interpret "Congress" to be "Private citizen", but I am not sure how many federal judges, conservative or liberal, would entertain that argument.