Violent protests after election flout federal law

Posted: Mar. 19, 2017 12:01 am

To The Herald-Whig:

As a senior citizen, I am a product of the 1960s, with high school graduation, college graduation and Vietnam service in the Marine Corps. JFK's assassination, Berkeley's free speech movement, LBJ's War on Poverty, the Civil Rights Act, the burning of draft cards, college riots, anti-war marches, the nation's division, etc. are memories shared by my generation.

The 1960s national divide has never been resolved. In 2016 it was widely reported, that two out of three citizens felt the nation was on the wrong course. The 2016 General Election has changed that course, and exposed the unresolved division of the 1960s.

The United States of America is the product of a free market constitutional republic. It has flourished since 1789, and is the envy of the world, due to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. There are 27 amendments to the Constitution. The first 10 amendments are referred to as the Bill of Rights. It is widely believed the Bill of Rights were listed in the order deemed important by the nation's founders.

The First Amendment reads: "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 grievance."

Historically, the political party out of power in the U.S. has been referred to as "the loyal opposition." Considering the First Amendment's guarantee of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance," how does the Democratic Party condone the many violent acts of civil disobedience after the 2016 General Election? No one has been seen singing "Kumbaya!" In fact, black fascist uniforms, with face covering have been observed. Are these acts of obstruction acts of revolution?

Historically, the U.S. has been a nation of law. The Supreme Court has ruled federal law prevails over laws regarding federal issues. Yet there are states, cities and universities choosing to ignore federal immigration law. Are these acts of sedition?

Donald B. Stoneking


Sign up for Email Alerts