The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. [snip]

Amendment I: 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.

National Archives

Read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. Note that it clearly states that the purpose of these first amendments is

in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

Restrictive clauses are being added to the Constitution.

Now read the text of the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law. Congress is restricted from abridging a variety of rights. It’s quite clear that the men of that time felt that certain rights pre-existed the Constitution; not were granted by the Constitution.

The Republican Party is holding its national convention in New York City August 30 through September 2 of 2004. A number of groups and individuals intend to protest at that time. Having read many of the sites that are organizing these protests, and lacking a clear understanding about the intent and purpose of them, I blogged a request to the left. I asked skippy to post a link on his site, which is to the left of mine, and I received many responses.

I’m going to try to isolate the various reasons set forth by my commenters, and discuss them in some detail. The passion and strength of belief of many of these people is obvious. I do not intend to mock them, but I hope to establish the error of at least some of their ways. At the very least, I hope to point out places where two reasonable people can see the same thing and disagree honestly.

Ann Marie Moriarty wrote me a nice e-mail answering the question: Why protest?

The Constitution says they can. And the current administrations seems so determined not to allow any dissent at any of the campaign appearances that this may be the only venue at when [sic] those who disagree with current policies can expect to be heard by the delegates, and expect their views and the specifics of their concerns to be conveyed by the media.This e-mail is why I put the First Amendment up above. The Constitution says that Congress cannot make a law abridging freedom of speech, freedom to petition the government and freedom to assemble peaceably. It doesn’t say you have the right to protest. That’s assumed to exist. The Constitution says that the government cannot abridge that right. Of course, it’s done all the time. Over the 200 plus years, many restrictions have been placed on speech, and assembly. You do not have the freedom to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater, to offer a famous example. You don’t have the freedom to stand in the Capitol rotunda and make a speech, nor can you stand in the middle of the Brooklyn Bridge and do so.

As of this writing, the umbrella protest group, United for Peace and Justice, has been denied a permit to hold their rally in Central Park. Permits are yet another allowed restriction on speech. The limits of the First Amendment are far narrower than the literal reading of the clause would suggest.

Ann Marie’s e-mail states that the purpose of these protests is to convey policy disagreements and protestors’ views to the delegates and the media. She is not suggesting, I believe, that the delegates and media are unaware of this things. The protests are a reminder, a sign, a statement to the delegates and the media.

On to some other reasons:

I–and many on the left who disagree completely with this administration’s policies, almost to a one–feel that the GOP must constantly be made aware of the position of the rest of America. Somehow, after the fractuous [sic] election of 2000 and after losing the popular vote, George Bush decided to act as if he had a mandate, eschewing his ‘compassionate conservatism’ mantle for the fluff that it was, and basically governing from the right, for the right. It is the job of protesters to remind the republicans that more than half the country disagrees with them. At the very least, it may persuade the otherwise brazen lawmakers that the public is not as dumb as they think, and that we’re watching them.

If it means that one law that strips away civil liberties for the sake of protecting us against a terrorist bogeyman is softened, or that a concession is made to those who really want to protect the environment, the protests will have served their purpose.

1. the GOP must constantly be made aware of the position of the rest of America - The commenter seems to believe several things. That the GOP is not aware of the opinions of Americans in general. Since polling is a major expense for all political parties, I would suspect this is untrue.
2. after losing the popular vote, George Bush decided to act as if he had a mandate, eschewing his ‘compassionate conservatism’ mantle for the fluff that it was, and basically governing from the right, for the right - George Bush is hardly the first President to lose the popular vote. And far more Presidents than you might think have won with less than 50% of the votes cast, as well. As Presidents have done since the Republic began, when he won, he governed. Leadership is why we elect a President. You may disagree with his effectiveness, but he has just done what all 42 of his predecessors have done.

   As for the canard that Bush is governing for the right, I would suggest that you read some of the articles in National Review or at some of the right wing bloggers such as The Daily Pundit . The Right is dreadfully unhappy with George Bush. The Prescription Drug plan, the deficit, increases in government spending for social programs, pandering to the Saudis, the porous borders, continuance of programs such as the National Endowment for the Arts, all are examples where the Right parts company with George Bush. Don’t confuse a general acceptance of the Bush Administration’s conduct of the War on Terror with overall happiness with George Bush.

3. It is the job of protesters to remind the republicans that more than half the country disagrees with them. - Polling again. On some issues, yes. On many others, no. Your strength of belief does not provide any indication of anyone else’s belief. Sorry. My friends on the right make the same error, as well.

Here’s a good comment:

I would not expect one thing to change. My presence or absence will not make the difference to the Rs re-nominating the resident. However those of us who believe he should be nominated as the biggest threat to world security and not as the leader of this nation should, if able, go voice our opposition. The problem in this society is apathy and to stay home and curse the TV is barely an improvement over our fellow citizens who don’t even know who is running.Apathy:
1. Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.
2. Lack of emotion or feeling; impassiveness.

Wow. A condemnation of society in general. Oddly, the same statement I’ve heard on the right to explain why hordes of folks don’t rise up for this cause or that cause. People don’t give a rat’s ass about this or that. Apathy is terrible? Not so, I believe. Apathy merely indicates that a given subject fails to qualify as important to a person or to a society. Here again, a failing of the subject, not the society. Nearly every subject that the right or the left will decry society’s apathy about, well… society knows; it just isn’t important. So sorry. The snail darter loses out to food on the table and a night out bowling. And that is not a bad thing. Many voices say that the RNC protests are about breaking society out of apathy. Good luck with that. Society has more important things to do, I’m afraid.

Here’s a commenter who says the protests are about doing the right thing:

As the rulers of the USA have sunk deeper and deeper into total depravity they too have adopted the Ministry of Truth attitude that whatever might make them look bad can be denied, or simply forgotten. It has gotten to the point where the mark of a true modern “conservative” is complete immunity to shame (let alone guilt) since they freely choose to believe anything they like without regard to mere facts. In this respect the defenders of “tradition” are now (and I think always have been) very postmodern.

Whether or not it is strategic, speaking truth to powerful people is the right thing to do; something good may come from it, but nothing good can come from lying. The fact that we are ruled by liars does not change this though it means we are used to functioning in a fact-free official environment.speaking truth to powerful people is the right thing to do - That would be the people that were just called depraved, and liars. This strikes me as school yardish. In your face because I can. I sadly believe that this sort of fellow will always believe that the establishment, whether under Howard Dean, Ralph Nader, John Kerry or George Bush are depraved and liars. Sometimes the truth is a bitter pill, and disbelief is a way of handling that. Again, not solely a leftist issue.

Here’s an interesting point, because of its complete falsity:

Till the vote in November, it’s the first big chance for folks opposed to the war with Iraq to be heard since before the war began. As a life and death issue, it motivates folks and always will. Protests since the war:
Link One
Link Two
Link Three

That same commenter also says:

I’m not saying every protest will be on points I agree with but on big issues like the war, homeland security, economic concerns or healthcare, it’s a perfect opportunity when arrayed against a president that at least 50 million Americans don’t like.A lot of people don’t like George Bush. 50 million people voted for Al Gore in 2000. But 50 million voted for George Bush. And nearly 4 million voted for neither. Just like in every election. Reagan, in 1984, still only got 58.8% of the popular vote. Two party elections fluctuate around 50:50, unless one party goes in the toilet, and then another party will grow. It’s not a particularly surprising thing that Bush got about half the votes cast.

Whew! Almost to the end, dear reader, if anyone at all is still with me. In summary, people will be protesting at the RNC because:

• we have the right to
• to bring our views to the attention of the delegates and the media
• to stand up for what is right
• to let Americans know what we think is wrong with the Bush administration
• because we can
• to make people aware of the issues

Education, publicity and protesting for protest’s sake. Have I summed it up correctly? I am no more enlightened than when I started, I’m afraid. I don’t believe the American public, the GOP, or the delegates to the convention are ignorant of the issues of the day. Strength of belief is not a guarantee of anything, including a shared understanding of that belief with any other person. I fear that the protests will lose any sense of purpose early on, and no good can come after that. When the windows at Starbucks or Citibank start being smashed, my lack of edification and clarity about the protests will be nationwide.