Never mind the fattie in New Jersey, I have bigger fish to fry

Yeah, yeah I'm angry the human compost machine vetoed gay marriage in New Jersey. But that seems to me like more of a perpetuation of the inevitable, given that polls in Jersey show it'll pass if left up to popular vote.

An article popped up on my facebook feed this evening and, as always, I did a little investigation. Some may call me suspicious; I just like to think of it as someone telling me the sky is falling. I'm still going to look outside to make sure. The title? "Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal."

Sounds a little extreme, right? So, I go to look for the amendment, and it turns out it's shorter than the article itself. The search for the amendment only stays live for thirty minutes before you have to search for it again (it's fairly easy, you can do it here). I'll outline some of the text here.   

"Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever--

`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b)."

So... people aren't allowed to protest around protected buildings or grounds? A little rude, well, actually, very rude, but it makes sense, right?
...if you've ever been to Washington D.C., I'm sure you've seen people camped outside the Capitol building picketing this or that. Now,  the Capitol Building is not a restricted building or grounds within the context of this bill.
However, if anyone in that building has protection of the Secret Service, that automatically enacts these rules.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure engaging in physical violence is against the rules from everywhere from daycare to Phillies games, so I'm not sure what the point is in outlining that in this amendment.

So, let's look at this subsection b to see how they're punished, shall we?

"(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--

`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--

`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case."
 

I'm struggling finding this section 2118, but what is more important here is that there is that anyone who transgresses this law faces a fine or up to one year of imprisonment. This preventing of "ingress and egress?" That means entering and leaving buildings. So people who knowingly interrupt people's entering/leaving the White House or a building that contains someone protected by the Secret Service could be potentially arrested, fined, and imprisoned?

Oh, okay.

"knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;" 

This definition is loose for a reason. On February 16, Pro-Life demonstrators were arrested outside the White House for protesting. Protesting? Hm... that reminds me of something...

"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."

So, what you're telling me is that I have a right to assemble, and that Congress cannot make any law that inhibits that right... and that Congress is in the process of passing a bill that prohibits just that?
That's not the only document allowing the right to assembly. It's also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 20) and the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 15).

People who protest are people who typically do not hold majority opinion (or if they do, it's not been enacted into law-- *cough* gay marriage in New Jersey *cough*).
I'm not sure if you ever heard of this guy, James Madison, but he wasn't a fan of the majority trampling all over everyone, in fact he wrote about it once, in an essay called Federalist 10. It was included in a collection of papers from Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton, which detailed how they wished to shape the new government after the clear failure of the Articles of Confederation (spoiler alert: these ideas are incorporated into the constitution). Madison writes:

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

He speaks of "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority," that is, the tyranny of the majority. In simpler terms, Madison feared that those who held the positions of power who were part of the majority would use their positions to enact their will upon the rest and stifle opposition.

It's exactly what's happening now.

How can the candidates running for office claim to want to go back to the Constitution, when their political comrades are systematically dismantling everything for which it stands? First, they pass the Indefinite Detention Bill, effectively pooping on habeas corpus, and now they're blowing their nose with the First Amendment.

Civil liberties are not a joke, but they certainly seem to be amongst the politicians in Washington.