Liberty and public meetings

Liberty is a manifestation of freedom. As much as human beings have a right to be free, they have a right to liberty; the right to do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want; subject to limitations imposed by legitimate government. The process by which those limitations are imposed, is the passage of laws. There is no contrary provision in the Constitution.

The government can impose no other legitimate limits on personal freedom and liberty, than the due passage of laws.

There are politicians and public servants who think they can limit the personal freedom and liberty of citizens by writing and enforcing "Rules of decorum". They are not laws and they limit personal freedom and liberty. As such, they are not sanctioned by the Constitution. It amounts to outlawing behavior that is manifestly legal.

The 10th Amendment requires that powers not delegated to government are reserved to the people. The power to impose limits beyond the law, on personal liberty, has not been delegated to the government, and therefore resides with the people, even when they are standing at a public forum in a public meeting.

The government cannot limit personal freedom and liberty except according to the law.

Whatever personal expression that is not against the law, can be done legally as an expression of personal liberty, without fear of arrest or intimidation by the government.

Politicians and public servants find that the people can do things that make them uncomfortable, but aren't against the law, like asking them inconvenient questions; why will they not hold themselves honestly accountable as a role models of student standards of conduct?

It's not against the law, but it makes them feel uncomfortable.

So they write of a "rule of decorum" prohibiting personal expressions that make them feel uncomfortable.

There's a big difference between breaking the law and breaking a rule of decorum. Under the law, there is a promise of due process. A citizen accused of breaking the law is protected by a system that protects both the accuser and the accused.

There is no due process under rules of decorum.

If the government, a la APS School Board enforcer Marty Esquivel accuses a citizen of breaking a "rule of decorum" there is no justice; there is no due process. There is no balance of power.

There is no place to appeal his decision. There is no place to protest his unlawful use of a publicly funded, private police force, link,to curtail personal liberty beyond the law. No place where he will not be protected by the government, using all ts power, resources, and influence to stand between him and any personal accountability.

It isn't just Esquivel; it isn't just Torrance County Commissioner Lonnie Freyburger, link, it's petty politicians and public servants everywhere, who think they can invent and enforce "rules of decorum" and in so doing limit the free exercise of Constitutionally protected human rights to assemble peacefully and speak freely in the effort to petition the government.

Rules of decorum and the enforcement of those rules by the government, are as unconstitutional as they are unlawful.

And yet, they get away with it.

In Esquivel's case, it helps to have Journal editor Kent Walz covering his trail.




photos Mark Bralley