The Right to Dissent

{1} " ….there shall be a new election of the members of the Grand Council every three years; and, on the death or resignation of any member, his place should be supplied by a new choice at the next sitting of the Assembly of the Colony he represented."
--Ben Franklin; Albany Plan of Union; 1754

There was a lot of tension in the colonies in the 1750s. There was the series of battles that are known as the French and Indian, including the Seven Year’s War. These had to do with the control of trade, and the ability to exploit the natural resources of the Native American people. As a result, the people of the colonies began to think of ways to protect their rights.

Franklin used the concept of a Grand Council, which came directly from the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. He had experience in dealing with the Iroquois, as would several of the other Founding Fathers, including Jefferson and Madison. The Iroquois Confederacy was a method for rational people to deal with the tensions that always arise in society in a rational manner that attempts to exclude violence.

After the conflicts between France and England subsided, the tensions between the colonists and the crown increased. Those tensions led to the Declaration of Independence, which remains one of the most powerful revolutionary statements in modern history. It is so powerful, that although Americans are encouraged to celebrate it every July 4th, it is rarely read in its entirety.

{2} "The Articles provided for a unicameral Congress with no separate executive or judiciary. Congress, which could act only on the states, not on individuals, was to be elected annually in a manner to be determined by each state legislature."
--The Oxford Companion to United States History; 2001; page 51

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States. It was drafted in 1777, adopted by the 2nd Continental Congress that same year, and ratified in 1781.

Almost immediately, there were tensions associated with it. These were the serious disagreements between those who favored a stronger central government, and those who opposed that concept. There were also conflicts between states regarding the amount of representation each state would have in the federal government, because of the differences in population from state to state.

In 1786, there was a move to revise or even replace the Articles of Confederation. There continued to be significant disagreements between the federalists and the anti-federalists. The more enlightened among the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid making the new nation into a carbon copy of England, but there was also tensions brewing about the ability to tax. There were also different interests looking to control commerce, not only between states, but between the US and other nations.

The Constitution of 1787 remains the central document in American government. It strikes a balance between federal and state powers. More, it divided the federal government into three co-equal branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. By its nature, the Constitution recognizes that there will be on-going tension, both between the state and federal levels, and within the three federal branches. Tension can be a good thing, when all parties agree to go by the guidelines provided by the Constitution to resolve the various problems that arise.

{3} "I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed (the Constitution), disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachment on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have long been accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised sovereign power: nor ought we consider them safe, while a great number of our citizens think these securities necessary."
--James Madison

Within a year of the Constitution being ratified, some of the progressive Founding Fathers began to point out that much of the promise of the Declaration of Independence was lacking from the document. They were focused on another level of tensions in society: those between the government and the individual.

In 1789, James Madison began to draft a dozen "articles" which were considered for additions to the Constitution. The first two were removed (#2 resurfaced later as the 27th Amendment), and the other ten became the Bill of Rights. They were ratified in 1791.

These rights, which are sometimes said to be tiered (with the most important being found in Amendment #1), indicate an understanding that there are times when the tensions in society can cause the government to try to restrict citizens’ rights.

In "The Imperial Presidency," historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., documented how the executive branch of the federal government has attempted to expand its powers during times of war. The presidents from both parties have attempted to exploit international tensions to grab powers that the Constitution has deemed belong to the congress, or even the judiciary.

Likewise, it is in times of international tension when the federal government tends to attempt to deny groups and individuals of their Constitutional rights found in Amendment #1. This does not mean that these rights are not infringed upon in times of relative peace, because they certainly have been. And, in fact, other rights have been infringed upon by the federal, state, and local governments.

However, some of the most important areas of Constitutional law involve cases decided by the federal courts, which pit the government against the individual.

{4} "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 of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." –Amendment #1

For the sake of this discussion, I want to concentrate on the last four rights found in Amendment #1: (a) free speech, (b) a free press, (c ) the right to assemble in public, (d) and the right to petition the government. As Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court Abe Fortas noted in his 1968 book "Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience," these are the rights that not only guarantee citizens’ right to disagree with the government, but they outline how that dissent is to proceed for the benefit of the individual and society.

Freedom of speech implies freedom of thought. More, it allows free-thinkers to submit their ideas to what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes called "the marketplace of ideas" (Abrams v United States). Freedom of speech is also referred to as freedom of expression, and involves more than a person’s right to speak their mind with words. It also applies to other ways that creative people communicate their beliefs, including high school students wearing tee-shirts with political messages.

Freedom of the press has to do with the right to have people (groups or individuals) who gather information, report the news, and provide opinion pieces. In the days of the Founding Fathers, it involved the printing press. In time, it came to include the radio and television airwaves. Today, it has expanded to include the internet.

The right to assemble and the right to petition the government with grievances are so closely related that they are often mistakenly assumed to be one right. Public assembly can be a way to get the attention of elected officials, but it is also an important way to communicate ideas to the public at large. And petitioning the government includes everything from an anti-war rally in Washington DC, to a high school student taking up a petition, to an elderly person writing a letter to a senator, to a person sending an e-mail to the White House.

Ultimately, as Fortas pointed out, these freedoms are ways for citizens to have an impact upon the single most powerful form of protest that we have, which is the ballot box. We can use our free speech, the free press, political rallies and petitions to encourage elected leaders to be responsive to our demands, or we will work to have them replaced.

{5} "Freedom does not mean license." -- Erich Fromm; foreword to "Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing"; page xiii.

The freedoms guaranteed by Amendment #1 are not without restriction. The best-known restriction comes from Justice Holmes noting that a person does not have the right to falsely yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There are other examples of limitations of free speech that include sedition, slander, and as Scooter Libby found out, lying to police investigators or while under an oath in a court setting.

The freedoms of the press have some related limitations. The 1917 Espionage Act has been used to discourage those who would engage in "spying" to benefit another country. An example of this is found in the neocon/AIPAC espionage case, where a group of intelligence operatives attempted to use the free press as part of an effort to pass highly classified military secrets to a foreign country.

The right to hold peaceful public assemblies can be restricted by permits, and the right to petition the government with grievances is restricted by free speech zones. In one of the most important cases of the civil rights movement (Walker v Birmingham; 1967) the US Supreme Court ruled against Rev Martin Luther King, Jr., after he violated an order restricting what Martin felt was an obligation to assemble and participate in a march to express grievances.

The majority of the overt attempts by the government to restrict citizens’ rights guaranteed by Amendment #1 are found during times of international tensions. As noted, our history shows that it is during times of war that the executive branch has frequently attempted to grab power from the other branches of government. This isn’t a coincidence. It is important that informed citizens are aware that times of war have always been, and continue to be, when our nation risks losing the very things that make us a Constitutional democracy.

{6} "It is the courts – the independent judiciary – which have, time and again, rebuked the legislatures and executive authorities when, under the stress of war, emergency, or fear of Communism or revolution, they have sought to suppress the rights of dissenters. In the famous case of Exparte Milligus, the Supreme Court held that President Lincoln’s suspension of the civil courts and the writ of habeas corpus were unconstitutional.

"Although we were in a desperate war against Nazi Germany, the Supreme Court in 1943 reversed the conviction of persons who distributed literature condemning the war and the draft and opposing the flag salute. (Taylor v. Mississippi, 319 US 583)

"Time and again, the Court has rebuked and rejected efforts to deprive people of their jobs in state and federal government for their mere beliefs or mere membership in unpopular or even essentially subversive groups."
--Abe Fortas; Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience; pages 46-47.

The famous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" statement came from Schenck v United States, a case involving anti-war fliers during WW1. In the 1919 case of Debs v United States, political activist Eugene Debs’s conviction was upheld, not because he presented any "clear and present danger," but because his ideas had a "natural tendency" to convince others to refuse to serve in the military when placed in that marketplace of ideas. And there are numerous other examples of cases that define our Constitutional law which restrict our ability to exercise the rights guaranteed by Amendment #1.

The Bush-Cheney administration has taken the concept of an imperial presidency to new lows, and their attempts to subvert the Constitution have made this the revolutionary presidency that Schlesinger warned of. The congress has shown no evidence of the will or ability to confront the administration in any meaningful way. Instead, they focus attention on attacking a MoveOn.org ad.

The federal courts have been the source of the only limitations on the executive branch’s abuses of power. I say that with a full awareness of the imperfections of today’s federal courts, which too often represent the corporate interests of the republicans who have appointed the judges to their positions.

Henry David Thoreau wrote that we must be human beings first, and subjects afterwards. To do this, we risk having those stuffed shirts in Washington DC question our patriotism. "As I have already told you," Camus reminds us, "if at times we seemed to prefer justice to our country, this is because we simply wanted to love our country in justice, as we wanted to love her in truth and in hope."

Fromm warned that "human history began with an act of disobedience – it is likely to end with an act of obedience." It is our duty to say, "Not on our turn." We need to exercise those Amendment #1 rights that guarantee that we keep our Constitutional democracy alive, even against the aggression of the executive and the cowardice of the legislative branch.

"In a democratic society law is the form which free men give to justice. The glory of justice and the majesty of law are created not just by the Constitution – nor by the courts – nor by the officers of the law – nor by the lawyers – but by the men and women who constitute our society – who are the protectors of the law as they are themselves protected by the law." – Robert F. Kennedy

I support Dan Rather' law suit against CBS.

He is doing a heck of a job on MSNBC this morning.

Hope he wins

From what you've written (good history lesson, by the way) it would appear his conviction was unjust as it was upheld not for acts but because his ideas would have sway in the marketplace. Isn't that the point of #1? I understand it can be a slippery slope as it would give a Hitler the forum to brandish his evil ideas so how does this shake out. It's the situation with the KKK whose rights are always upheld, but with them I don't know that they're more than a nuisance anymore. So how do we draw the line? I understand the courts would be the final arbiter but the problem these days is that part of the 'master plan' was to unbalance the courts with a slew of right wing ideologues, thus effectively removing justice from the justice system.

there are a number of instances where the US Supreme Court has erred in its decisions. There was one in the year 2000, for example. We have an imperfect form of government, but it is still worth our investing our efforts in keeping our Constitutional democracy alive.

Societies always involve numerous tensions, and the Contitution's Bill of Rights provides us with the tools needed to fight the good fight. We do not want to move in the direction of either a repressive or more violently fractured society -- yet those are very real alternatives to the rule of law that we need to maintain.

Statements she's made since 2000 lead me to believe theirs was a judgment based on politics rather than the law. I wonder how she feels now that she knows that the SC coup d'etat she participated in has wreaked havoc on both justice and the law since the day * rode into town? Does she sleep well at night?

as to pervert the very firewalls put in place to protect citizens? And why would any senator vote against restoring Habeas Corpus? Is it that because to do so would say they were wrong in the first place or is the answer more nefarious? I also can't help noticing that about the time Ted Stevens was casting negative votes for rights we found out the FBI has been secretly taping him. I wonder if he's re-thinking any of his positions?


Hi Jim :hi:

I think it is important for democrats to recognize that the assault on the Great Writ began under President Clinton. It was wrong when he did it, and it is wrong today.

The voice of conscience back then was Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I think he anticipated what is happening now.

"As Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court Abe Fortas noted in his 1968 book "Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience," these are the rights that not only guarantee citizens’ right to disagree with the government, but they outline how that dissent is to proceed for the benefit of the individual and society."

It's an important point.

Fortas had voted with the minority of the Justices on the Walker v Birmingham case. He had made an important point in the Court's examination of the case, when Justice Stewart was questioning Louis Claiborne as to why he felt the Court should not apply the standards of United States v United Mine Workers, 330 US 258 (1946).

Claiborne had answered, "Yes," to Stewart's question about a person could use their own discretion to decide if they should disobey a court order they consider unjust. Fortas said, "Really all you are talking about is not whether the injunction can be disobeyed with impunity but whether the person who disobeys the injunction has the right to have his claim that the injunction was void examined by the court."

Justice Fortas recognized that it was important that our society examine ideas, even those that can cause people to feel discomfort.

Thank you.

That which you fail to use or exercise will surely atrophy and fade away.

The people still have these powers granted them under the Constitution, but they are not eternal and self-perpetuating without constant vigilance on the behalf of the people.

The constant 'chipping away' of the powers that make us a functioning democracy is ongoing and often occurs 'below the radar.' Until people realize they have acceded to an unholy exchange of our Constitutional rights and privileges (which form the bedrock that makes us a democracy) for the myth of 'security', we are likely to watch from the sidelines as our democratic form of government continues to crumbles before our very eyes.

It's also important to recognize that this nation has struggled with many of these same issues at different times in our history. There is a right way to approach the conflicts we face. Martin Luther King used to speak of "creative tension" -- and I think our society needs a dose of Martin's approach to cure some of the Cheneyite infections that are threatening our Constitution.

There are hundreds of decisions by the SCOTUS that were handed down as the law of the land for years on end before the SCOTUS found its way to the right and moral position that our democracy demands.

Just as an example, most people think the SCOTUS discerned the wisdom of enforced school desegregation as soon as the case reached their doorstep. As you and I know, there were hundreds of trial and appellate cases decided which upheld racial segregation and then placed a stamp of approval on 'separate but equal' standard before the SCOTUS found its moral center and voice in Brown v. The Board of Education.

I have heard it referred to as the 'myth of history' that people believe.

We need to remember that every significant change in government policy in this country was preceded by the personal efforts of individuals who stood on the ground of moral right and withstood the power of those in control of our government who attempted to silence or destroy them.

That is what we face today. It is important that we stand up for the preservation of constitutional rights during times of war and terror, because these are precisely the times in which those rights are needed most. If we rollover and allow those rights to be suppressed, we are no longer a democracy.

A timely post indeed.

to read, discuss, and understand those great documents -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and others that are the foundation of this nation. In numerous threads on DU this week, I've read where good and sincere people say things that indicate a lack of familiarity with some of the basics which should be taught in public schools.

When people understand the system, and know how it has worked in the past, then the current issues remain as troubling, but the solutions are more easily identified. We are in a heck of a struggle today, and it could get far, far worse in a very short time. It could also get better. It depends largely on what the citizens do.

Without a free and independent press to gather information and inform the public, democracy cannot function, and recognition of such is found in the 1st Amendment.

Too many people today are too easily misled by the MSM which through corporate consolidation has crafted its own agenda, which is not in the public interest.

The Dan Rather lawsuit may serve to pull back the curtain on how so-called news organizations are being controlled and their message crafted to serve the purposes of those corporations who stand to benefit from pushing the Administration policies.

Many journalists have lost their journalistic ethics, gotten fat, lazy and rich, from supporting the Administration policies. They deserve to be exposed, and until that happens we will never reach the majority of the people with the truth.

Bob Fitzsimmons

(I picked him out of the Wikipedia).

was a tough man.

One of my all time favorites, "Ruby" Fitzsimmons

only middleweight champion to win the heavyweight title. And the only heavyweight champion who went on to win the Light Heavyweight title. A good book on Robert was published recently.

Boxing thread this week?

created a gap .... along with the end of the ESPN season.

Next week will be interesting, with the Taylor v Pavlik fight. Berto is in a tough match on the undercard.

where this country would be if we had not had the benefit of learning from the political structure of the Iroquois. It would seem that that would have initially stunted the puritan values that we see arising in force in todays society. That was an inspiring piece, it is unfortunate how quickly the sacrifice of those before are forgotten with the distractions of the modern world. I can say that to an extent I am ignorant of the depth of the constitution and you have made me realize my right and responsibility as a global citizen.

:hi:

Nice post.

Join the fray

differences without violent conflict has not taken root in all of our leaders' hearts, of course. And it goes beyond that: over the years, I've met with town, county, and state officials to discuss conflicting values between Iroquois and US societies. Some people get it, some don't.

I recommend that people who are interested read "A Basic Call to Consciousness." It's the statement the Haudenosaunee made to the Non-Governmental Organizations of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland in 1977. It holds up very well.

much in line with his new book which I happen to be reading at the moment.

of his books, "Worse Than Watergate" and "Conservatives Without Conscience." They are both important works, and I look forward to reading other books and articles by John Dean. I always enjoy seeing him on Countdown, too.

"Time and again, the Court has rebuked and rejected efforts to deprive people of their jobs in state and federal government for their mere beliefs or mere membership in unpopular or even essentially subversive groups."
--Abe Fortas; Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience; pages 46-47.


This one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20894377/

"KANSAS CITY, Mo. - When the mayor named a 73-year-old grandmother to the city’s park board — which considers issues like off-leash dog areas and outdoor party permits — the move might have gone largely unnoticed.

But Frances B. Semler’s appointment could now cost Kansas City millions of dollars because she is a member of the Minutemen, a group that advocates vigilante patrolling of the Mexican border and reports illegal immigrants to authorities.

Her membership has drawn sharp criticism from the National Council of La Raza, the nation’s largest Hispanic advocacy group, and the NAACP. Both groups are threatening to show their displeasure by canceling conventions scheduled to be held in Kansas City."

I think our need for free speech is vital as it allows people to be exposed to evolving ideas, instead of being stagnant. I have always been somewhat disapproving of religious evangelicals who try to sell you on God. However in a more broad way, activists and protesters are a kind of evangelical, that helps to spread information about how humanity needs to change.

My family of origin strongly advocated new ideas, but I never really read the history of free speech. So this is kind of remedial education for me.

I was the editor of the "underground" newspaper. There was the good kids' paper, run by the school. And the trouble-makers paper. It required me to learn exactly how close to the edge I could go without having the paper banned.

I had a friend who published in high school too, but mostly prankster type of stuff.

Underground paper in Houston? Late 60s early 70s?

took part in an underground magazine/newspaper. Circulation was our main problem the only folks kind enough to distribute our free periodicals were head shops and porn gallarys...an early "editor" eventually left the scene to go to Berkley where he successfully launched his own mag that ran strong for over a decade.

a collector's item!"

I do not recognize George W. Bush as the legitimate President of the United States; he was appointed, not elected.