If you weren't aware of all the post-election protests, I don't know if I should applaud you for your disconnect from the corrupt media, or to question you for your intentional disconnect with reality. Regardless, Democrats have taken to the streets to protest the President elect Donald Trump. When attacked or ridiculed for protesting, the Democrats "cite" the first amendment: "we have the right to protest." I didn't remember there being a right to protest being in the bill of rights so I looked again:
I was right, there is no right to protest in our bill of rights. What we commonly interpret as "the right to protest" in the first amendment is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Let's dissect this for a moment. First of all, the word "peaceably" should stand out. Most of the protests have been peaceful, but for those that have become riots, the same claims of "the right to protest" have been used as justification. The incorrect assumption that a protest or riot is justifiable under our laws if you have a reasoning behind it has emerged.
Next is the word "assemble". Gathering in groups for a legal cause is protected under the Constitution; using these gatherings to illegally impede traffic, vandalize property, or disturb the peace is not protected. Just because you legally assemble doesn't mean that everything you do as an assembly is protected.
The next examination is in regards to petitions. This is a way for governing bodies (government, businesses, etc.) to recognize what those under it's reach of influence support or object to. However, a common misconception is that if a petition reaches a stated or unstated minimum that those whom it is addressed to must accept it and include/regulate it as policy, rule, or law. A petition for Gary Johnson to be included in the debates reached about 1 million signatures. To most people, they reached an arbitrary minimum and felt it unfair that Gary wasn't included in the debates because of their petition. What they didn't understand is, first, their petition is only for recognition, and second, Gary Johnson didn't have the stated minimum of support to be in the debates. Likewise, Democrats have a petition which as of today (11/13/2016) has approximately 3 million signatures to try and force the electors to switch their vote to Hillary. This is doing what a petition is meant for, which again is recognition, but the purpose seems to differ. Even if the petition reaches more signatures than votes Donald Trump got, it doesn't require the government to obey it, rather simply to recognize it. If Democrats didn't want Trump for President, they should have took more action before the election, not after.
Finally, let's examine the final piece, "redress of grievances." The point of all of this is when someone has been dealt with unfairly to get recognition of the governing body and to help amplify their voice. It is to help us solve problems of injustice, not a difference of opinion. The founding fathers wanted us to have the power to keep those in power in check. The protests being displayed have nothing to do about solving problems or dealing with injustice because Donald Trump isn't President yet, he hasn't enacted any laws, nor has he had economic effect on anyone not employed by him. If we interpret the first amendment with it's literal and intended definition, the protests are not protected and not justified, and are illegal.
"You're just saying this because you disagree with us! Republicans have protested as well!" True but the difference is that most Republicans seem to better understand the Constitution. The biggest modern Republican protest was "the 9-12 project" initiated by Glenn Beck. Approximately 1.4 million protestors came before the capital building in Washington DC to protest Obama trying to divide the country. They felt he was intentionally trying to create hatred between Republicans and Democrats. They also protested his failing policies and his illegal executive orders. Following the protest, police reported that no violence was reported during or after the protest, traffic was not impeded, no vandalism was found, and not even the smallest amount of litter was found. The largest Democratic protest was at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Hundreds of thousands of Democrats appeared in Chicago in opposition to Democratic presidential nominees' policies and opinions regarding the Vietnam war. These protests became violent and required between 10,000-15,000 policemen to dissolve the riots that ensued. Hundreds were injured and many people were murdered including John F. Kennedy's brother and Martin Luther King Jr. Though the number of Democratic protestors was presumably less than half of Republicans in their respective protests, violence was completely absent in those of Republicans. This is not just a comparison between two protests, but a historical trend for the protests of each party.
I'm all for the rights in the first amendment because I like being able to voice my opinions and opposition to things and people I disagree with. However, I also believe that our rights shouldn't be abused or they may be taken from us. You have the right to drive a car if you have a license but that right is taken if you are negligent, use it for illegal purposes, or endanger those around you. Let us be a tolerant, peaceful people who use logic. Let us unify as a country and allow our democratic process to lead us to what it may. If you oppose Trump, do so in a legal, peaceful way, and in the correct situations. Let's be a smarter people, and help make America great again!
No comments:
Post a Comment