3 ms·

The right to peaceably assemble does not include the right to assemble for the purpose of violence.

• x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
  The first amendment does not include the word "peaceably."
  • zucker42 6y ago
    You are incorrect.
  • 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
    Edit: (Full text of the First Amendment that I could find) "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 doesn't need to. Just as it doesn't need to have a provision for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. But such actions will have consequences. Congress has the authority "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;". Assembling for the purpose of violence is by definition an insurrection. So if the First Amendment said nothing of peaceably assembling, we can assume it is meant so, otherwise the Constitution would say nothing of insurrections.
    • colpabar 6y ago
      https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
    • Supermancho 6y ago
      > It doesn't need to. Your interpretation is not compelling (as well as not relevant, due to the presence of the term). When there is a question, entertained by a court and an emduring legal precedent, ipso facto there was a legal question. An assumption about what needs to be enumerated to exist, is the doctrine of strict constructionism.