Redress of grievances?
A young man named Dustin Barnes was, according to the caption of this news photo, “escorted from a town hall meeting while trying to shout questions at U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney”.
According to the US Constitution, this was a lawless action on the part of those who removed Dustin from the meeting.
US Constitution, 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.
This meeting was not a private gathering — the Cheney family Christmas party or some such. Say what you want about the trustworthiness of the so-called mainstream media, but I believe we can safely assume that the description “town hall meeting” provided by the AP is largely accurate, regardless of whether the organizers of the event put some patina of a private assemblage over it or not. It was a political appearance by the Vice President, attempting to build support for the policy agenda of the administration. That is precisely the sort of situation in which the First Amendment should most apply.
A written constitution only serves to restrain government as long as the members of the government believe themselves bound by it. We have clearly “progressed” beyond that point.
Share This
