The Unconstitutional law that forbids demonstrations against the US Supreme Court:

[elehhhhna]

Okay, so here’s the deal. Some folks have been wanting to Occupy the Supreme Court.

But, you got this:

Title 40, Subtitle II, Part C, Chapter 61, Subchapter IV, Section 6135 of the US Code: “It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.”

Now, clearly that’s unconstitutional. I’ve seen grandma take a hoe to a snake with less damage than Title 40, Subtitle II, Part C, Subchapter 6135 does to the First Amendment.

But, who would declare it unconstitutional?

Ah ha, you got it.

So, the Supremes, who interpret the constitution, would have to declare that picking on them is constitutionally guaranteed. Yeah, right, Scalia is gonna for for that. Hell, Scalia doesn’t even think that women have a constitutional protection against discrimination. Women protesting on the courthouse steps would give the Scalia gout or something.

http://juanitajean.com/

[daleanime]

1. Sounds like a good reason.,...

to do it.:bounce:

[leveymg]

2. Actually Scalia's pretty good about the 1st & 2nd Amends - most of the rest, not so much

Interesting. I didn't even know about 40USC, Subtitle II, Part C, Sub 6135.

Not surprised the Supremes would want to keep the ruckus down in the halls - but, you know, there are laws against electioneering near polls that have withstood 1st Amend. challenge, too.

[izquierdista]

3. William O. Douglas would have

He didn't suffer fools like Scalia and Thomas. Oh, to have even 3 like him back on the Court.

[hack89]

4. Can you name a single court room that would allow a demonstration?

everyone of our rights has boundaries (like them or not) - I am ok with no demonstrations inside a court room.

[Sirveri]

5. And what about the steps to the building? Grounds is included.

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.

Sounds pretty clear to me that this law as written is unconstitutional.

[hack89]

6. Every right has boundaries

otherwise why are there gun control laws?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I agree that demonstrations on the steps are ok but not in the building itself.

[elehhhhna]

11. lol & that's why you can open carry at political events

does the nra support us packing while in the USSC building ? why or why not?

Important to remember that politicians, guns, money, corporations, and citizens (IN THAT ORDER) have major rights in the us.

[hack89]

12. In most states open carry is illegal.

With over 20,000 gun control laws in America don't you agree that Constitutional rights can actually be limited? Not a hard question.

[Jim Lane]

7. The First Amendment allows reasonable limitations on the time, place, or manner of speech.

People can be prohibited from blaring their views out of sound trucks cruising through residential neighborhoods at 4:00 a.m. The anti-choice zealots can be kept a minimum distance from clinic doors.

The OP's title is misleading. You can demonstrate against the Supreme Court all you want (and those same anti-choice zealots have done so routinely since Roe v. Wade). You just can't demonstrate at the Supreme Court.

If you assembled a panel of nine prominent Constitutional scholars, all of whom renounced any ambitions to sit on the Supreme Court, and asked them to opine, I think you'd get a ruling solidly upholding this law.

[Sirveri]

14. Then they should have said that in the first amendment.

Or they should amend the first amendment.

The problem I have is with the 'grounds' part, not the chambers. Otherwise what is to stop them from simply expanding the grounds to include the street out front, how about the entire block, and then the sidewalk across the street. And the justices homes, etc etc etc...

[Jim Lane]

15. They couldn't say EVERYTHING in a constitution

Start down that line of reasoning, and you'll have to explain to a right-winger why the Framers didn't say that one-person-one-vote was constitutionally required. (Remember that it was only within living memory that the Supreme Court said that legislative districts couldn't be based on geography.)

As for expanding the area that's off-limits, the prevailing interpretation is that the government may impose reasonable restrictions. Go too far and it isn't reasonable.

Of course, what's "reasonable" isn't a bright line. At the margins, people can disagree. That's the way our legal system works -- with regard to time-place-manner restrictions on speech and with regard to, oh, a zillion or so other questions.

[Sirveri]

19. They could say anything they want in the constitution.

The statements are quite simple IMO, and bear little debate. One can assemble in public space without restriction, and the government may not do anything about it. The 9th, 10th, and 14th, then applies all those laws and protections down to the state and city/county level. Are the grounds of the court public space or private space. If they're public then they need to be open to everyone. Likewise for the court chambers, which are most likely private, and thus aren't protected.

The debate isn't about freedom of speech, but about private versus public space. If they want to abridge freedom of speech, then the proper way to do so is by constitutional amendment, because the 1st specifically says that they can NOT do that.

[Jim Lane]

20. No, they couldn't, or it would be several hundred pages long.

A constitution sets forth broad general principles. There will always be details to be resolved in the implementation.

You try writing a succinct amendment to the First Amendment, such that it still protects freedom of speech but allows the government to:
*prevent anti-abortion zealots from yelling at women as they enter a clinic;
*prevent manufacturers from making false claims about their products (This supplement will keep you from getting cancer!);
*make and enforce codes against "hate speech";
*keep Election Day leafletters a given distance away from the entrance to the polling place, so that voters can enter easily;
*protect people like Valerie Plame Wilson from having their lives endangered because people like Robert Novak blow their cover as CIA agents;
*keep scenic highways free of billboards;
*restrict pretrial public disclosures in high-profile criminal cases, so as to safeguard the accused person's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, which can be endangered by prejudicial pretrial publicity;
*prohibit blackmail;
*allow private corporations to make and enforce nondisclosure agreements with new employees;
*if I kept going I could think of more but that's enough to illustrate my point.

If you believe that any of these types of restrictions on free speech are improper, and the First Amendment shouldn't allow the restriction (i.e., should protect the speech), then remember that your succinct wording has to make it clear that it protects the examples you think should be constitutional rights while allowing government regulation of the examples you think can properly be restricted.

The current version is fourteen words: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." If you want the answer to every question to be spelled out specifically in the Constitution, can you get it done in fourteen words? Can you get it done in fourteen hundred?

[Sirveri]

22. That's what the Supreme court is for. That said, some language is clear.

13th says slavery shall NOT exist. There isn't wiggle room there.

There are plenty of areas where the language is clear. Congress can't make laws abridging freedom of speech. Period. Want to change that, then draft a new amendment and ratify it to the constitution to change it. If that's too hard then that's just tough, governing is hard, next time don't set up the system that way.

[elehhhhna]

10. "and to petition the Government" -- of which the USSC is a branch

[Xithras]

16. U.S. citizens have no right of redress from the Supreme Court.

Your right to petition the government for redress rather clearly implies that the government has the ability to offer redress, or to answer the people. In fact, the Constitution makes it quite clear that each branch of government has a path of authority, suggesting (but not explicitly stating) where redress is owed.

The President of the United States...is answerable to the entire population of the United States, which elects him every four years.
Senators...are answerable to all of the residents of the states they represent.
Representatives...are answerable to the citizens of the districts they represent.
The Supreme Court...is answerable to Congress.

The first three groups are answerable to the people, and as such the people have a right to petition for redress. You can protest against them, because you vote for them and put them into power. You can protest against them because the constitution clearly states that they are answerable to the people.

The Supreme Court is a bit different: Article 3. Section 2: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Per the U.S. constitution, only Congress has the authority to appoint, remove, and regulate the power of the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no constitutional mechanism for them to answer to the American people. There is no legal form of redress that they can offer the American people. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional to prohibit citizens from protesting for redress, because redress is constitutionally unavailable to them.

The United States Congress has the authority to pass a law AND to specifically exclude that law from the authority of the Supreme Court. This is virtually unheard of in our country because it's seen as a violation of the intent of "the founders", but they DID include this clause to allow Congress to overrule the courts when it's absolutely needed.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow declaring: "Corporations are fictional entities and are not to be granted the rights or privileges of real persons anywhere within the United States. The United States Supreme Court shall have no authority to review, limit, or strike down this law." Such a law would be perfectly constitutional, and the USSC could do nothing about it.

You DO have a right to demand redress from the Supreme Court...but only THROUGH CONGRESS.

[elehhhhna]

17. Xith, would you please make that an OP? It's good useful info!

[Sirveri]

18. Congress does not appoint supreme court justices, that's the executive.

However he needs the advice and consent of congress. Executive appoints, congress affirms.

In addition I see NOTHING granting congress the ability to overthrow judicial oversight. A3S2 specifically states:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

So no, they can't remove judicial oversight. They could pass a law about it, but it would still be able to be heard based on that phrase alone and would, I hope, be struck down. The only way to remove judicial oversight is to pass a constitutional amendment. Unless you have case law backing you up which I don't know about, and I certainly hope you don't since that would be as great a travesty as citizens united.

[aikoaiko]

8. Isnt there public space across the street from SCOTUS where people can assemble...

...much like there is space across the street from the Whitehouse to assemble?

:shrug:

[NYC Liberal]

9. There is no law that forbids demonstrations against the Supreme Court.

Your post doesn't cite any such law.

[TheManInTheMac]

13. Do you feel the same way about protests inside and at the entrances to

Planned Parenthood or other buildings that perform abortions? Can't have it both ways.

[struggle4progress]

21. Notations at 40 USC 6135 suggest this law has been on the books since at least 1949,

with a reference (63 Stat. 617) to the 63rd volume of the Statutes at Large

I haven't found such old Statutes at Large, or Congressional Record, online -- so can't easily double-check

But the prohibition is limited and content-neutral; it forbids demonstrations on the SCOTUS grounds, not demonstrations against SCOTUS; it was duly enacted by the other branches of government; and I rather doubt SCOTUS would find it unconstitutional