Magruder’s American Government
1st Edition
ISBN: 9780133306996
Textbook solutions
All Solutions
Section 8-4: Freedom of Assembly and Petition
Exercise 1
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 2
1st Amendment to the Constitution, among other things, guarantees the right of citizens to assembly and petitions. Citizens have the right to protest and express their opinion and try to influence the public. It should be noted that the Constitution guarantees only peaceful assembly that does not involve violence or endangering other people and property
Step 2
2 of 2
During a protest against construction of a pipeline from Alaska to the Gulf Coast, protesters organized a sit-in on the sidewalk in front of the State Department. This protest was protected by the Constitution because the assembly was peaceful and did not endanger other people or property.
Step 1
1 of 3
The **Constitution protected the protest** event against a pipeline from Alaska to the Gulf Coast per the freedom of assembly under the 1st Amendment.
Step 2
2 of 3
The 1st Amendment protects citizen’s right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. This includes peaceful protests or public meetings.
Step 3
3 of 3
**Per the 1st Amendment**, the citizens have the right to express their opinion in the form of protest as well, but under the condition of the protest not harming others. If the assembly were not peaceful, it would not have been protected by the Constitution.
Exercise 2
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 3
Citizens have the right to peaceful assembly in order to express an opinion or position, and that right is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Step 2
2 of 3
The government must respect this constitutionally guaranteed right, but may also demand that certain rules be observed regarding the time, place and manner of assembly. These rules should be reasonable, clearly expressed and adopted, in order to be clear to all citizens. Also, the rules must be neutral in relation to the reason for the gathering.
Result
3 of 3
The government rules may limit the time, place and manner of the protest, but not its content. Otherwise, the rules would violate the Constitution.
Step 1
1 of 3
The **1st Amendment** protects citizen’s right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. This includes peaceful protests or public meetings.
Step 2
2 of 3
The **government does not have the right to interfere with peaceful public assemblies** as they are considered to be individual freedoms and forms of public expression. Still, the government’s job is to control the appropriateness of public meetings to make sure they do not interfere with the liberty of others or the public interest.
Step 3
3 of 3
However, there was times when the government strategically violated the freedom of assembly to suppress public dissent and shut down the criticism in the favor of political interest.
Exercise 3
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 2
In the city of Skokie (Illinois), a group of citizens who sympathized with the ideas of Nazism, tried to hold a assemble. This gathering was controversial, given that many Jews live in this city. Local authorities initially banned the assemble, but the case eventually reached the Supreme Court (Collin v. Smith, 1978).
Step 2
2 of 2
The Court ruled that the 1st Amendment protects the right of that group to hold the desired assembly. The Court reminded that the laws and rules cannot deal with the content of the protest and that it must be allowed as long as it is peaceful, although the majority of citizens oppose the ideas that the protesters wanted to express. Citizens have the right to express unpopular opinions and that right is protected by the Constitution.
Step 1
1 of 3
The problem in **Collin v. Smith** (1978) case is a group called “followers of Nazism” that was eventually and legally allowed to a peaceful assembly in Skokie, Illinois. This happened after a request for and their shut down.
Step 2
2 of 3
Almost everyone has the basic knowledge of the horrible things Nazis condoned during the time of Hitler as the head of the state, especially the jew population from Skokie. It is logical that people would not support any kind of symbolism or actions that uplift or show bias for the Nazis. Therefore, the local government countered the assembly and shut it down.
Step 3
3 of 3
The **1st Amendment protects** citizen’s right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. This includes peaceful protests or public meetings. The 1st Amendment must guarantee freedom for the expression of even the unpopular opinions. Therefore, the government did not find a link to forbid such a meeting just because of its content, and a key factor was that it was a peaceful assembly.
Exercise 4
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 3
**Civil disobedience** is a term that refers to a non-violent and intentional violation of a law. Citizens may opt for such a violation of the law in order to protest against the law itself or a public policy. This institute is very important for the United States because it has been used successfully many times in its history.
Step 2
2 of 3
Nevertheless, the Constitution does not guarantee the right of citizens to disobedience and this is an opinion that is often taken by the Supreme Court in its judgments. It should be noted that it does not mean that every citizen who decides to disobey will be punished, but he should be aware of the possible consequences and be ready for them.
Result
3 of 3
Although civil disobedience is not defined as a guaranteed right, it should be borne in mind that some changes in society take place quickly and that laws often cannot accompany these changes quickly enough. Civil disobedience may be relevant in such cases, it may indicate to legislators that a law is outdated and should be aligned with the circumstances.
Step 1
1 of 3
**Civil disobedience** is when the citizens refuse to obey the law or change their actions if they are judged to be unjust. It can be said that civil disobedience is a form of breaking the law but in a nonviolent manner; this can happen in many different ways.
Step 2
2 of 3
Technically, the **Constitution does not protect civil disobedience** because an individual is still breaking the Constitutional law. Individuals who condone civil disobedience might or might not face consequences. Consequence can be a charge for a misdemeanor or even a felony. It is up for the judgment by the Supreme Court.
Step 3
3 of 3
The problem that goes into the favor of civil disobedience can be an outdated law that the citizen can break but, in reality, does not necessarily break the natural law. The point is that there has to be space and open mindedness for progression in all matters of politics and individualism. Only on this point, the Constitution might protect “civil disobedience” over particular and not all matters.
Exercise 5
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 2
1990 in case **Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois**, the Supreme Court has ruled that denying the right to promotion of civil servant Rutan on the grounds that he is not a supporter of the ruling Republican Party is unconstitutional.
Result
2 of 2
The Court found basis for such a judgment in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, more precisely in **the right of association.** The right of association is not literally stated in the 1st Amendment, such as freedom of the press or speech, but the Court has recognized this right as one of the fundamental rights. This right specifically implies the right of people to associate to promote political, economic, and social ideas.
Step 1
1 of 2
The **1st Amendment** of the Constitution guarantees the right of association where everyone has a right to team up with others and freely promote politics, economics, and social matters. Furthermore, everyone is entitled to form associations free from governments interference.
Step 2
2 of 2
In the case **Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois** (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that Rutan’s promotion could not have been denied because of the sole reason Rutan was not supporting the Republican party. The Supreme Court ruled this because Rutan being denied a promotion based on the given reason would surely break the 1st Amendment and the right of association. Therefore, a promotion can not be forbidden by a government entity based on individual political preference, party affiliation, and promotion.
unlock