Posts
PEACEFUL DISSENT OR DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
By
Joseph Chez
September 1, 2009
Mark Twain put it best when he stated that, “the radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopt them.” In the case of health care reform, the radical wing of conservative politics have surely hijacked the debate, invented the reasons to oppose it and have adopted extreme measures to show it. They come to rallies and town hall meetings armed to the teeth. However, the question is why? They carry loaded side arms and even AR-15/M16 type rifles. They say they oppose health care reform but their message is skewed by their obvious intolerance and their calls for taking the country back. Consequently, I question not, their right of dissent, but the clear and present danger they pose to the safety of the President of the United States.
Thus, the issue is not about the 1st or 2nd Amendment Constitutional protection for those dissenters, but about a dangerous precedence taking place which threatens the stability of the Executive Branch of our federal government. Further, if the opposition to President Obama’s policies are so dissatisfied and truly fear for the disintegration of their freedom, I ask: where were they during the Bush Administration?
Etched in history and in the minds of most Americans, are the Bush Administration policies during his term of office, in which many of our constitutional protections were diluted and in some cases, were simply set aside. A prime example of constitutional degradation were the National Security Letters that were issued to American citizens under the auspices of the Patriot Act which gave those unfortunate recipients: no reason for the apprehension, no Habeas Corpus, no right to contact a lawyer, and a dire warning for any recipient not to discuss the content of such letters with anyone – including the media or a lawyer. And yet, history now chronicles those days of fearful dissent, when liberals, free thinkers, democrats and intellectuals dared not question the government’s necessary measures to fight global terror, so we were told. On the other side of the political spectrum however, conservatives were simply, happy-go-lucky to forgo their Constitutional protections and instead, they fully embraced such constitutional degradation and deemed it necessary.
In the heat of post 9-11 hysteria and hubris, I remember being in Fresno CA. and stopping to join a peaceful gathering. On a main thoroughfare of Fresno California, a small group of dissenters stood on the corner of Blackstone and Shaw, timidly holding sings protesting the war we were about to unleash. But fearful dissent it was, as peaceful men, women and children were pelted with projectiles from passing cars. They endured the constant finger out of cars windows and repeated name calling. But as my wife and I joined the group, I suggested that we hold the American flag up, high and prominently – as we were exercising our constitutional right of assembly and freedom of speech. Across the street however, were undercover police in unmarked cars, taking pictures of all participants in the protest. You would think however, that the police would also be there to protect the dissidents from those unsympathetic to the protest. But not so, as it was clear that they sided with the kick-butt crowd. Months later, it was revealed by the media, that the police had even infiltrated those local peace activist groups.
In Capitol Hill, Washington D.C., the atmosphere of fear was no different; any dissenting voice by a lawmaker, or simple opposition to a war funding bill was immediately likened to be “un-American or treasonous” by those in the political right-wing. Even the Speaker of the House or Intelligence Committee members, who had constitutional right of oversight, dared not inquire or question the Bush Administration’s national security measures being taken. However, as President Bush traveled the country to raise hubris and support for the homeland, only verified registered republicans were given the privilege of attending his presidential rallies. Incidentally, in one occasion, a man was arrested for carrying a loaded gun within a five mile radius of the presidential rally, and this was a big story in the media.
Today, the bubble has burst and innocence has been lost; protesting President Obama’s policies are beyond heated – they are bizarre and imminently dangerous. On the menu of his policies for which the conservative opposition is hell-bent to distract or destroy, is the issue of health care reform. Even if the intent of Democrats and the President is to provide medical coverage for the 45.6 million Americans who are presently medically uninsured, this matters little for the opposition. Further, despite the fact that much of the groundswell is being funded by the GOP and insurance companies, conservatives have lapped the misinformation in a thirst of intolerance.
But who are these people in the opposition? For the most part, they are GOP operatives who have skillfully managed to snare many unenlightened conservatives as well as fence sitters. Further fanning the flames of distrust and hate also comes from the renowned fox nation and its pitch fork revolutionists. Additionally, what is of utmost concern, is the participation of the rock-crawling militia types who apparently hear the calling once more. Thus, these neo-con aggregates now come to these town hall meetings armed to the teeth, blatantly and openly, carrying their loaded side arms and assault rifles. In one case, even a black man openly carried an AR-15 in protest of President Obama, which I truly find bizarre and antithetical to Dr. King’s dream. However, the BIG issue is whether carrying loaded weapons to where the President of the United States is present, is that legal? Does that not present an imminent threat to the safety of our president?
These conservative dissenters would have us believe that they are participating in constitutional protected activities, which for the most part, they are. However, they remain steadfast with their arguments of their need to protect their constitutional rights. They talk of “taking the country back”, fighting against socialism and watering the tree of freedom, which is another code word for revolution. Exacerbating the mob scenes, are GOP lawmakers who remain silent in the face of mob rule or failing to correct patently false misinformation. However, whether they are within their right to protest, a First Amendment guarantee, or have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, there is an inherent conflict between the argument of protection under the 2nd Amendment right and Article 2. Sec. 1, of the United States Constitution, which provides for existence of The Executive Branch. Accordingly, we must therefore delineate the constitutional guarantee from a more fundamental corner stone which establishes a branch of our government. In sum, one can not exercise the right to carry loaded weapons under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment, when it undermines the fundamental safety of the Executive Branch under Article 2, Sec. 1. Moreover, while many of the weapon-totting individuals who claim a state’s right to carry a loaded weapon, such perceived right maybe curtailed by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which provides a Supremacy Clause over the states. Further, even though constitutional rights may seem unbendable, the courts have ruled that such rights may in fact encroach on more fundamental portions of the Constitution. Therefore, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and claim protection under the 1st Amendment, or one cannot own a nuclear weapon, even though the 2nd Amendment allows for the right to bear arms. In like manner, the circumstance should be the same for those gun toting enthusiasts; they do not have the right to create a clear and present danger to the President.
A clear warning to the Secret Service and the Obama Administration, that they must not be lulled into complacency on this issue, as allowing weapons to be carried at presidential rallies or town hall meetings, may well provoke critical and regrettable outcomes. Regrettably, many right-wingers may have already become radicalized and we may have already crossed the event horizon – to the detriment of our nation.
By
Joseph Chez
September 1, 2009
Mark Twain put it best when he stated that, “the radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopt them.” In the case of health care reform, the radical wing of conservative politics have surely hijacked the debate, invented the reasons to oppose it and have adopted extreme measures to show it. They come to rallies and town hall meetings armed to the teeth. However, the question is why? They carry loaded side arms and even AR-15/M16 type rifles. They say they oppose health care reform but their message is skewed by their obvious intolerance and their calls for taking the country back. Consequently, I question not, their right of dissent, but the clear and present danger they pose to the safety of the President of the United States.
Thus, the issue is not about the 1st or 2nd Amendment Constitutional protection for those dissenters, but about a dangerous precedence taking place which threatens the stability of the Executive Branch of our federal government. Further, if the opposition to President Obama’s policies are so dissatisfied and truly fear for the disintegration of their freedom, I ask: where were they during the Bush Administration?
Etched in history and in the minds of most Americans, are the Bush Administration policies during his term of office, in which many of our constitutional protections were diluted and in some cases, were simply set aside. A prime example of constitutional degradation were the National Security Letters that were issued to American citizens under the auspices of the Patriot Act which gave those unfortunate recipients: no reason for the apprehension, no Habeas Corpus, no right to contact a lawyer, and a dire warning for any recipient not to discuss the content of such letters with anyone – including the media or a lawyer. And yet, history now chronicles those days of fearful dissent, when liberals, free thinkers, democrats and intellectuals dared not question the government’s necessary measures to fight global terror, so we were told. On the other side of the political spectrum however, conservatives were simply, happy-go-lucky to forgo their Constitutional protections and instead, they fully embraced such constitutional degradation and deemed it necessary.
In the heat of post 9-11 hysteria and hubris, I remember being in Fresno CA. and stopping to join a peaceful gathering. On a main thoroughfare of Fresno California, a small group of dissenters stood on the corner of Blackstone and Shaw, timidly holding sings protesting the war we were about to unleash. But fearful dissent it was, as peaceful men, women and children were pelted with projectiles from passing cars. They endured the constant finger out of cars windows and repeated name calling. But as my wife and I joined the group, I suggested that we hold the American flag up, high and prominently – as we were exercising our constitutional right of assembly and freedom of speech. Across the street however, were undercover police in unmarked cars, taking pictures of all participants in the protest. You would think however, that the police would also be there to protect the dissidents from those unsympathetic to the protest. But not so, as it was clear that they sided with the kick-butt crowd. Months later, it was revealed by the media, that the police had even infiltrated those local peace activist groups.
In Capitol Hill, Washington D.C., the atmosphere of fear was no different; any dissenting voice by a lawmaker, or simple opposition to a war funding bill was immediately likened to be “un-American or treasonous” by those in the political right-wing. Even the Speaker of the House or Intelligence Committee members, who had constitutional right of oversight, dared not inquire or question the Bush Administration’s national security measures being taken. However, as President Bush traveled the country to raise hubris and support for the homeland, only verified registered republicans were given the privilege of attending his presidential rallies. Incidentally, in one occasion, a man was arrested for carrying a loaded gun within a five mile radius of the presidential rally, and this was a big story in the media.
Today, the bubble has burst and innocence has been lost; protesting President Obama’s policies are beyond heated – they are bizarre and imminently dangerous. On the menu of his policies for which the conservative opposition is hell-bent to distract or destroy, is the issue of health care reform. Even if the intent of Democrats and the President is to provide medical coverage for the 45.6 million Americans who are presently medically uninsured, this matters little for the opposition. Further, despite the fact that much of the groundswell is being funded by the GOP and insurance companies, conservatives have lapped the misinformation in a thirst of intolerance.
But who are these people in the opposition? For the most part, they are GOP operatives who have skillfully managed to snare many unenlightened conservatives as well as fence sitters. Further fanning the flames of distrust and hate also comes from the renowned fox nation and its pitch fork revolutionists. Additionally, what is of utmost concern, is the participation of the rock-crawling militia types who apparently hear the calling once more. Thus, these neo-con aggregates now come to these town hall meetings armed to the teeth, blatantly and openly, carrying their loaded side arms and assault rifles. In one case, even a black man openly carried an AR-15 in protest of President Obama, which I truly find bizarre and antithetical to Dr. King’s dream. However, the BIG issue is whether carrying loaded weapons to where the President of the United States is present, is that legal? Does that not present an imminent threat to the safety of our president?
These conservative dissenters would have us believe that they are participating in constitutional protected activities, which for the most part, they are. However, they remain steadfast with their arguments of their need to protect their constitutional rights. They talk of “taking the country back”, fighting against socialism and watering the tree of freedom, which is another code word for revolution. Exacerbating the mob scenes, are GOP lawmakers who remain silent in the face of mob rule or failing to correct patently false misinformation. However, whether they are within their right to protest, a First Amendment guarantee, or have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, there is an inherent conflict between the argument of protection under the 2nd Amendment right and Article 2. Sec. 1, of the United States Constitution, which provides for existence of The Executive Branch. Accordingly, we must therefore delineate the constitutional guarantee from a more fundamental corner stone which establishes a branch of our government. In sum, one can not exercise the right to carry loaded weapons under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment, when it undermines the fundamental safety of the Executive Branch under Article 2, Sec. 1. Moreover, while many of the weapon-totting individuals who claim a state’s right to carry a loaded weapon, such perceived right maybe curtailed by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which provides a Supremacy Clause over the states. Further, even though constitutional rights may seem unbendable, the courts have ruled that such rights may in fact encroach on more fundamental portions of the Constitution. Therefore, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and claim protection under the 1st Amendment, or one cannot own a nuclear weapon, even though the 2nd Amendment allows for the right to bear arms. In like manner, the circumstance should be the same for those gun toting enthusiasts; they do not have the right to create a clear and present danger to the President.
A clear warning to the Secret Service and the Obama Administration, that they must not be lulled into complacency on this issue, as allowing weapons to be carried at presidential rallies or town hall meetings, may well provoke critical and regrettable outcomes. Regrettably, many right-wingers may have already become radicalized and we may have already crossed the event horizon – to the detriment of our nation.
