Obama Silent, Bloomberg Wrong on Constitutional Rights
Printer-friendly version
by Marsha Coleman-Adebayo
New York City’s billionaire mayor polluted the moral and factual environment when he claimed concerns for public health motivated his police assault on Zuccotti Park. “If Mayor Bloomberg has suddenly developed an interest in the health of New York residents, that would surprise many advocates for the homeless and the uninsured.” The mayor’s men in blue convey his true message of political repression and the whittling away of Constitutional rights.
Obama Silent, Bloomberg Wrong on Constitutional Rights
by Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo
“Why do we have an agency to protect the environment if it is more concerned about protecting big business.”
In Australia this week President Barack Obama received insurance against a crocodile attack. Unfortunately for him it does not extend to the United States. The alligators of dissent are circling.
The president has remained silent about violent police actions to remove Occupy Wall Street protestors across the nation whether New York, Oakland, Chicago, Los Angeles or elsewhere. As president, Obama should be the primary defender of the Constitution, yet he remains silent, apart from hypocritically pontificating on global platforms while at home the economy crashes and violent police actions against peaceful protestors take place.
A friend wrote to me from London this week after the 1am raid on Zuccotti Park in New York to evict Occupy Wall Street protestors: “Seems like the U.S. police are resorting to measures more reminiscent of a dictatorship. I hope Obama is happy!” I remember on my visits to South Africa hearing anti-apartheid activists talk of the dark days of repression and how police would conduct raids during the early morning hours knowing that their victims would be groggy and fearful in the dark.
New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, who claims he is a defender of the Constitution’s First Amendment, used the health excuse we heard from the Oakland mayor for her attacks on Occupy Wall Street protestors. If Mayor Bloomberg has suddenly developed an interest in the health of New York residents, that would surprise many advocates for the homeless and the uninsured.
“I remember on my visits to South Africa how police would conduct raids during the early morning hours knowing that their victims would be groggy and fearful in the dark.”
Bloomberg said: “No right is absolute and with every right comes responsibilities. The First Amendment gives every New Yorker the right to speak out – but it does not give anyone the right to sleep in a park or otherwise take it over to the exclusion of others – nor does it permit anyone in our society to live outside the law. There is no ambiguity in the law here – the First Amendment protects speech – it does not protect the use of tents and sleeping bags to take over a public space. Protestors have had two months to occupy the park with tents and sleeping bags. Now they will have to occupy the space with the power of their arguments.”
Bloomberg is wrong in his views, morally and legally. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment One says:
“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.”
Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including local government.
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court held that "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 duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States." In the last fortnight I have helped lead protests against the Environmental Protection Agency, called Occupy EPA, first for caving into corporate and right wing political interests by withdrawing anti-smog legislation, and then this week for not acting to stop environmental degradation. Why do we have an agency to protect the environment if it is more concerned about protecting big business.
For most of the 20th century tests to the First Amendment were about those espousing socialism or communism, most were defeated. There were challenges to burning draft papers during the Vietnam war, but the Supreme Court enshrined the right of protestors to do this, even the right to wear a jacket saying “F#@$ the Draft” in the corridors of the Los Angeles County courthouse. In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), this act was seen as legitimate comment and not punishable. Even burning the flag has consistently defied tests to view it as desecration.
The right to petition was an echo of the English Bill of Rights 1689 which, following the Seven Bishops case, stated it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
It’s worth noting that attacks on the First Amendment by Congress or local government have always preceded necessary changes in law – the people have led, and local or federal government have always resisted. For example, in 1835 the House of Representatives adopted the Gag Rule, barring abolitionist petitions calling for an end to slavery. In 1865, 30 years later, slavery was abolished.
These freedoms are not ours alone; they are beloved in every nation that calls itself democratic.
"We don't want to make this about police and protesters," said Stephen Squibb, an organizer with Occupy Boston, "It is about jobs and other things. That has been our message for two months and we are going to keep saying it.” The fat cats in New York, Washington and elsewhere have jobs, they have stretch limos that drive past the unemployed, they don’t care today, but these protests won’t end soon, someday they will be forced to stop, get out and speak to those with banners on the sides of roads.
Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo is the author of No FEAR: A Whistleblowers Triumph over Corruption and Retaliation at the EPA is available through amazon.com and the National Whistleblower Center. Dr. Coleman-Adebayo worked at the EPA for 18 years and blew the whistle on a US multinational corporation that endangered vanadium mine workers. Marsha's successful lawsuit lead to the introduction and passage of the first civil rights and whistleblower law of the 21st century: the Notification of Federal Employees Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 ( No FEAR.)
Click on the links below to view the demonstration and photos.
see bonus chapter from Jon Grand at: www.marshacoleman-adebayo.com
http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/video-and-photos-epa-protest-clean-air;
http://aaenvironment.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-dc-no-fear-coalition-occupy-epa.html
http://www.eparafaelmustgo.com
- Marsha Coleman-Adebayo's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Email this page- Printer-friendly version
Comments
ENFORCEABILITY
I am not one who of those who worships the Constitution or other legal documents. The same Constitution that so many people are so quick to praise, protected chattel slavery and codified the dehumanization of Blacks. Nor did this or any of the other so-called "great" documents protect Blacks from lynching and other forms of oppression after the "end" of legalized chattel slavery. In reality, the rule of law is often nothing more than the whims and the intentions of those with the power laboriously and ostentatiously set down on paper as if that act alone somehow sanctifies them. Oceans of ink have been expended by Western writers extolling the virtues of the "rule of law." I feel that at least as much ink could have been expended to examine the long history of the misrule of law in the West.
Lysander Spooner
"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves."
Lysander Spooner 1867
Why do we continue to disbelieve our experiences? Europeans have never kept one of the treaties they created with the indigeous people of this country. Why would we think they would honor the words of these dead White men who formulated the constitution? Is it me or are we the people insane?
Lysander Spooner was a favorite author of "Grandpa" Al Lewis
Al Lewis quoted him on his show, "Al Lewis Lives" on WBAI.
The sound of silence
The silence from "the Left", about Obama's silence is deafening. Excellent article. Even my most radical friend from the 60's has gotten weak knees and turned to Obama for protection from the right. I stand alone.
You aren't alone. A great
You aren't alone. A great many BAR readers stand with you. Tell your radical friend he/she would get better protection from the Right by adopting a guard dog as opposed to relying on Obummer. Obummer doesn't protect one from the Right; he IS the Right and protects the Right's quest for a total fascist State.