Evan Clary Unit 5 Cox v.

Louisiana 1964 (Assembly) -Cox was leading a civil rights demonstration that culminated near a courthouse in town. Police urged the assembly to move to a certain location as to not interfere with traffic and they obliged. Near the lunch hour Cox encouraged the group to disperse and attempt sit-downs at local segregated lunchcounters. At this the police moved in and attempted to disperse the crowd and later arrested Cox for disturbing the peace. The Court found that the conviction and broad 'disturbance of peace' statute were unconstitutional. Though Cox's words may have incited violence and disturbance he and others can not be arrested for the asserting of rights others may find hostile. Adderley v. Florida 1966 (Assembly) -Adderley led a large group to the parking lot of a not-public jail to protest for students sent there during the Civil Rights Era. The group was requested to leave the area and did not and were then charged with trespassing. The Court found nothing unconstitutional with the arrests because the Florida statute was concise and not broad-enough to allow for unconstitutional restrictions on the student's freedoms of speech, assembly or petition. Also, since the Sheriff arrested those arrested in order to allow vehicles in and out of the jailhouse and not because of the message they were promoting no rights were violated. Edwards v. South Carolina 1962 (Assembly) -A peaceful protest that took place on public grounds in an orderly fashion that did not block pedestrians or traffic was dispersed by police officers in Segregation-Era South Carolina. They were convicted of breach of the peace. The Supreme Court found that the arrests and convictions were unconstitutional and that South Carolina can not criminalize the expression of unfavorable views. Also, since no evidence proved anything the petitioners were doing was violent in the least, there were nothing proving the peace was really broken. Hague v. Committee of Industrial Organization 1937 (Assembly) -A pro-worker organization (the CIO) gathered at their headquarters to begin a recruitment drive in order to begin a public discussion on the National Labor Relations Act. Hague, the mayor of the city, ordered the police to break up the assembly citing a older ordinance that forbade the obstruction of government by unlawful means. The police did, the CIO filed suit. The Court held that the polices' actions were unlawful and violated the very heart of the freedom of assembly as it forbade the ability to discuss national legislation and how it affected the United States. Thomas v. Chicago Park District 1993 (Assembly) -Have to get a permit to have a large-event on public parks and must get this permit from the Chicago Park District. They can deny a permit on several grounds but allowed for appealing the result to first them, then a state court. Pro-Marijuana organization was denied then filed suit. The Court found that no rights were violated as the Chicago Park District denied permits not on subject-matter grounds but on content-neutral time, place and manner regulations. NAACP v. Alabama 1957 (Association) -State statute required the NAACP to reveal the name and addresses of all members and agents in the state. A unanimous Court believed this to be unconstitutional as it suppressed legal association amongst the group's members. To do so the state would need 'overriding valid interest of the state', which they did not.

Runyon v. McCrary (Association?) -Two families wanted to send their black children to two different private schools that were segregationalist in nature. Not surprisingly the two boys were denied entrance in the schools on account of their race. The Court held that even though the schools were private they could not prevent the black boys acceptance solely on race as it violated Section 1981 of Title II of the United States Code. They also expressed that the schools could freely express their views of segregation so long as they did not deny entrance on the grounds of race. At the same time they believed in the right for parents to associate to send their children to schools of such beliefs. Freedom of Petition -The right to complain or seek the assistance of your government without the possibility of punishment or reprisal. -Protects public participation in the government making it vital to a representative democracy. -The first real use of petitioning the government came during the 1830s during the real beginning of the heated abolitionist debates. The government was petitioned around 130,000 times between 1837-38 to end slavery and in 1836 a gag rule was adopted in the House of Representatives to end any discussion on the topic. In 1844 with the help of John Quincy Adams the rule was repealed as he believed it was contrary to the right to petition your government. -The right to petition also encompasses the right to sue your government, and the right to lobby your government. -In 1984 it was made clear by The Court that the government was not required to listen to petitions from the people however. Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees (Petition) -It was decided by The Court that it was not unconstitutional for the Arkansas State Highway Commission to ignore employee grievances when filed by a union rather than an individual. Freedom of Assembly and Petition -The right of assembly can be interpreted as meaning the right to assemble to petition the government. -[It] is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions--principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause. . . . The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed. Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as criminals on that score. The question . . . is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held but as to its purposes; not as to the relation of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects.'' -Petition has expanded from simply meaning telling government your grievances towards it and now encompasses asking government for assistance and for furtherance of the interest and prosperity of those that petition. United States v. Cruikshank -''The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. If it had been alleged in these counts that the object of the defendants was to prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the scope of the sovereignty of the

United States.'' Freedom of Assembly/Association -The individual right to collectively come to together and express, promote and pursue and defend common interests. -Kind of can be used interchangeably with the freedom of association. -Association is the individual right to come together and . -Freedom of association can be seen in workers' unions today. -The right of freedom of association can be seen to include the freedom of assembly. -Jeremy McBride believes that the respect of a freedom of association is necessary for a genuine democracy to be established and once established to be healthy and flourishing. The existence of political parties can be seen as a result of the freedom of assembly and are the most prominent example of the how freedom of assembly is fundamental to a genuine democracy.