the first ammendment specifically states
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.
it says they shall may no law!!!
why then, do local governments require permits to march or assemble peacefully? i mean... if federal law supercedes state or local.... can this be a legal defense in court?
2006-09-14 19:47:39 · 5 answers · asked by Valkrygrrl 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
For public order, municipalities have the right to control when and where an assembly occurs. You have a right to express your opinion in a public place, but others have a right to not be disturbed by your gathering. Otherwise, anyone could hold a march down Main Street during rush hour. While this may give you a large audience, it wouldn't be safe for demonstrators or motorists. Also, if you're advocating a controversial position, the city may want to have police present for your safety. All this has been held to be best in the interest of public safety. So no, this won't fly as a defense.
2006-09-14 19:59:59 · answer #1 · answered by bestguessing 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to permit content neutral regulations that control the time and manner of speech. That means a local government may decide that there will be no marches on Main Street between the hours of noon and five P.M., and it will be consitutional so long as the rules apply to everyone.
However, if a particular group (call them the party not in power in the town) is denied the use of Main St. for a 3 P.M. march when another group (supporting the party in power in town) is granted a permit for a march on Main St. at 3 P.M. - the application of the regulation is no longer content neutral, and thus is unconstitutional.
Requiring permits for all parades or marchs is not usually seen as a regulation of speech, but a practical function of government, providing for public safety.
This is a broad strokes treatment of a more complicated area of law...but it's a start.
2006-09-15 02:13:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
mostly, I choose Pittsburgh's version of the three - 4. whether, in case you will get the athletes, Baltimore's version of the 4 - 3 is the main suitable. Baltimore substitute into relatively working a three - 4 protection out of a 4 - 3 scheme, by using fact they performed 2 NTs contained in the middle with Tony Siragusa and Sam Adams, and their left protecting end Peter Boulware substitute into actual a glorified outdoors linebacker. yet it extremely is the main suitable ingredient some 3 - 4. maximum 3 - 4 communities can play out of a 4 - 3, yet few 4 - 3 communities can play out of a three - 4. The 4 - 3 conceal 2 in basic terms works by using fact few communities have actual TEs which could the two block and make catches down the middle of the sector ... maximum TEs are merely glorified WRs. A 4 - 3 protection would have worry scuffling with sweeps and out of doorways runs (which no person does anymore) by using fact the sturdy risk-free practices is contained in the container and the CBs and OLBs are generally undersized, and additionally the conceal 2 leaves extensive areas contained during the sector extensive open. That Eighties long island Giants offense with Joe Morris working outdoors and Mark Bavaro making performs contained during the sector would positioned up 50 factors a interest on a conceal 2 protection.
2016-09-30 23:41:12 · answer #3 · answered by armiso 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is a lousy defense. Oh for you libs out there, see the separation of church and state phrase in the first amendment? Let us know when you find it.
2006-09-14 20:30:00 · answer #4 · answered by Colorado 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do a case law search. The supremes do not agree with your interpretation.
2006-09-14 19:57:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋