Explain to us what the intent was for or better yet post what it reads in the Constitution. Everybody has an opinion, let's get to the root of what it really means.
Ok, start with the relevant text of the cotus:
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You have the right to assemble (to gather) peaceably, and to petition the government for redress of grievance
www.law.cornell.edu
There are a few articles out there about the intent of the freedom of assembly, and I’m looking for one in particular but can’t remember where I found it before, but this one from the link above kind of gives an indication to what I’m talking about:
The Cruikshank Case
The right of assembly was first before the Supreme Court in 1876
10 in the famous case of United States v. Cruikshank.
11 The Enforcement Act of 1870
12 forbade conspiring or going onto the highways or onto the premises of another to intimidate any other person from freely exercising and enjoying any right or privilege granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States. Defendants had been indicted under this Act on charges of having deprived certain citizens of their right to assemble together peaceably with other citizens “for a peaceful and lawful purpose.”
Although the Court held the indictment inadequate because it did not allege that the attempted assembly was for a purpose related to the Federal Government, its dicta broadly declared the outlines of the right of assembly. “The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States.
The bolded part would seem to indicate that the freedom to assemble and petition was really related to addressing the government, would it not?
Also, under the premise of “peaceable assembly”, a protest, where you are in conflict with whatever the target of the protest is, standing around, picketing, shouting, sometimes blocking the entrance to a business, or harassing customers coming in or going out, that is not considered peaceable.
Remember, the term “peaceable” doesn’t mean violence has to be present to be considered non peaceable:
1
a
: disposed to
peace : not contentious or quarrelsome
b
: quietly behaved
2
: free from strife or disorder
Simply to be in conflict, or in contention, not QUIETLY behaved, could negate the idea of a “protest”
So, the idea of peaceable assembly would generally rule out “protests” because protests, especially by todays standards, would indicate conflict, or contention.
This is why I think that that segment of the first ammendment was not related to picketing your local Starbucks, but rather, assembling at your government to make your case for change, in a peaceable way.
www.scotusblog.com
