The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the right to protest peacefully. This right is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [Emphasis added.] The following explanation is from the staff at FindLaw.com:
Protesting
is the practice of publicly speaking out against perceived injustices and
urging action. It is a form of assembly protected by the Constitution and
by international human rights law. While there is a right to peaceful
protest in the U.S., there are limits. These rights also only apply to public
space, not private property….
The
ability to air grievances without fear of retribution or censorship is fundamental
to democracy in the United States.
According to Eleanor Stratton at USConstitution.net, “The right to assemble is a fundamental aspect of American constitutional law, deeply rooted in the history and principles that shaped the United States.” This right allows Americans to assemble for assorted reasons and supports freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to protest or to “petition the government for redress of grievances.”
All of
the above information is to show that this writer supports the right to
assemble and to protest. Nevertheless, there are limits to all rights. Freedom
of speech does not give anyone the right to slander another person. Freedom of
press does not give anyone the right to print lies about a political enemy. In
much the same way, freedom to assemble and to make grievances known does not
give anyone the right to destroy government property, injure law enforcement
officers, or to loot stores.
Application
to LA Riots
Peaceful
protests from last Friday have turned into raging riots. Yet, California
Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass did not act to stop the
rioters. President Donald Trump remembered the events in 2020 when peaceful
protests erupted into riots in several cities that lasted for months. Rioters
were destroying Minneapolis, and Trump waited seven days for the governor to
activate the National Guard.
This
time, Trump saw the protests turning into anarchy, warned Newsom, and then
acted. Democrats and liberals are apoplectic, claiming that Trump overreacted
and threatened democracy over a non-crisis. Columnist Monica Showalter explained
why Trump has authority to call out the National Guard and Marines.
Will
a lefty judge pop out of the woodwork like a wooden cuckoo on a clock to say
time for an injunction?
So
far, that isn’t happening.
That’s
because in this case, [Trump is] on extremely strong legal ground. President
Eisenhower deployed the National Guard in 1958 to desegregate schools in
Arkansas. President Johnson deployed the National Guard to Alabama during the
March on Selma in 1965 to protect peaceful protestors. President Bush deployed
the National Guard to guard gas stations and other sensitive locations in New
York City on the day of 9/11 – the only reason I know this is I saw it. The
former two instances were done explicitly over the governor’s objections, and
if 9/11 happened today, the latter would have been done over the woke governor’s
objections, too.
Jonathan
Turley has a superb legal analysis that explains just why that’s so, and he
even cites leftwing legal eagles as being in agreement.
Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title
10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the president is “unable
with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The Administration is saying that that is precisely
what is unfolding in California, where mobs attack vehicles and trap federal
personnel.
Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy
grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics
like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that “Unfortunately, President Trump
likely has the legal authority to do this.”
There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at
this time, but the President is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump
wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney
King riots or the later riots after the George Floyd killings, causing billions
in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order
because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the
National Guard.
Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out
the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who “shall” issue the
President’s order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials “to
coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau.”
Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or
coordinate the deployment….
But
as Turley and Allen both note, Trump has that covered, based on his order to
deploy Marines from TwentyNine Palms with an invocation of the Insurrection Act
of 1807 if a judge sidelines the Guard.
It
raises questions as to why the left is fighting so hard to stop Trump on this
matter, given the potential for violence, destruction, deaths and lost tax
revenue.
Two
things spring to mind:
The
first is that the state is funding it. One of the key organizers of these “peaceful”
protests is an NGO called CHIRLA which is reportedly the recipient of $34
million in state funding from the California Department of Social Services.
The
other is the impact of illegal immigration enforcement on the size of the state’s
most powerful blue cities. How big would Los Angeles be if every illegal
immigrant was sent home? …
Court’s
Non-Action
Newsom tried
to immediately stop Trump from activating the National Guard and bringing in
the Marines by taking it to the court system. However, he did not have satisfactory
results. Virginia Allen at The Daily Signal explained as follows. Judge
Spurns Newsom's Request Against National Guard Troops
A federal judge on Tuesday afternoon denied California Democrat Gov.
Gavin Newsom’s request to immediately limit President Donald Trump’s use
of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles.
Newson asked U.S.
District Judge Charles Breyer to limit the enforcement activities of the
federal troops to the “immediate vicinity” of federal property while Newsom’s
lawsuit against the Trump administration over the deployment of thousands of
National Guard troops to LA proceeds.
The governor asked for a quick
ruling on the matter since National Guard troops have already begun arriving in
LA to protect federal buildings and personnel from violent rioters protesting
immigration enforcement operations.
On Thursday afternoon,
the court will hold a hearing on the matter.
The judge’s decision to
deny Newsom’s request for an immediate restraining order follows five
consecutive days of rioting in LA that began Friday in opposition to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. …
Trump
initially ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to LA and on
Monday announced he would be sending an additional 2,000 to the California
city. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also announced Monday that he was sending
700 Marines from Camp Pendleton to LA.
The
primary role of the National Guard troops Trump pledged to deploy is the
protection of federal government property and federal employees.
The
National Guard troops “may perform those military protective activities that
the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the
protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,” the White House explained
as it announced the deployment of the troops.
Allen explained that the majority of Americans support Trump’s decision to use the military to quell the riots. “RMG Research polling conducted among 1,000 registered voters on Monday found that 52% of respondents either ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’ approve of Trump’s decision to send National Guard troops to LA in the face of the fiery street protests.” The poll results show that 42% of American voters do not support Trump’s action while 7% are “not sure” what they think of sending troops into an American city.
No comments:
Post a Comment