Simone Lawson
Riots are not constitutionally-protected protests. This was the statement issued by Wyoming Congresswoman and House GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney in 2020, in response to the peaceful protests and violent riots happening across the country following the murder of George Floyd. While the right of Americans to peaceably assemble is a sacred right enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, riots are not protected by the same laws. The authority to quell riots and looting must be exercised responsibly, meaning reasonably, at every level.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Peaceful protests | Constitutionally protected |
| Violent riots | Not constitutionally protected |
| Use of force by government agents | Must be reasonable and non-arbitrary |
| Use of force continuum | Must be understood as a constitutional demand |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Peaceful protests are protected by the First Amendment
Cheney went on to distinguish between peaceful protests and violent riots, stating that the latter are not constitutionally-protected protests. This distinction is important, as it highlights the difference between lawful assembly and unlawful assembly.
The First Amendment protects the right to free speech and assembly, which includes the right to protest peacefully. However, it is important to note that this does not extend to violent or unlawful behaviour. Riots, looting, and attacks on law enforcement officials are not protected by the First Amendment and are subject to arrest, prosecution, and the full power of American justice.
The use of force by government agents to quell riots and looting must also be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. This is not only a wise policy but also a constitutional demand. The Fourth Amendment and the general constitutional demand for reasonableness require that all government action be reasonable and non-arbitrary. This includes the use of physical force, which must be a last resort and only used when lesser means of coercion have failed or are not feasible.
In summary, peaceful protests are protected by the First Amendment, while violent riots are not. The distinction between the two lies in the behaviour of the participants and the response of law enforcement, with the former being a lawful exercise of free speech and assembly, and the latter being an unlawful assembly that may result in arrest and prosecution.
Foreign Nationals: US Constitution Protections and Their Limits
You may want to see also
Violent riots are not protected by the Constitution
> “The right of Americans to peaceably assemble is a sacred right enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution. This right must be defended by our government and leaders, all of whom have sworn an oath to do so. The horrific murder of George Floyd has understandably sparked constitutionally-protected peaceful protests across the country. However, riots are not constitutionally-protected protests. Those who are exploiting the protests, attacking our law enforcement officials, burning our cities, and assaulting innocent civilians must be arrested, prosecuted and face the full power of American justice."
Cheney's view is that the right to peaceful assembly is protected by the Constitution, but that violent riots are not protected. This is because the use of force by government agents must be reasonable under the circumstances, as per the Fourth Amendment or the general constitutional demand that all government action be reasonable and non-arbitrary. The Department of Justice and many law enforcement agencies refer to this as the “use of force continuum”, which must be understood as a constitutional demand.
Migrants' Rights: Are They Protected by the US Constitution?
You may want to see also
The government must act reasonably and non-arbitrarily
The use of force continuum, as referred to by the Department of Justice and many law enforcement agencies, must be understood as a constitutional demand. All law enforcement officers, members of the National Guard and members of the federal armed forces must be told and trained to use force only when necessary and only when it reasonably appears that lesser means of coercion are not feasible under the circumstances or have failed. Warnings should be given before using physical force when possible.
The right of Americans to peaceably assemble is a sacred right enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. This right must be defended by the government and leaders, all of whom have sworn an oath to do so. However, riots are not constitutionally-protected protests. Those who are exploiting the protests, attacking law enforcement officials, burning cities, and assaulting innocent civilians must be arrested, prosecuted and face the full power of American justice.
Individual Freedoms: Constitutional Protections and Your Rights
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Law enforcement must be trained to use force only when necessary
The right of Americans to peaceably assemble is a sacred right enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. However, riots are not constitutionally-protected protests. This means that law enforcement must be trained to use force only when necessary.
All uses of lethal and non- or lesser-lethal physical force by government agents must be reasonable under the circumstances. This is not only wise policy, it is a constitutional demand. The Fourth Amendment requires reasonableness, as does the general constitutional demand that all government action be reasonable and non-arbitrary. The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments also protect against government infringements of personal liberty, including the infliction of physical injury.
The authority to quell riots and looting must be exercised responsibly, meaning reasonably, at every level. All law enforcement officers, members of the National Guard and members of the federal armed forces must be told and trained to use force only when necessary and only when it reasonably appears that lesser means of coercion are not feasible under the circumstances or have failed. Warnings should be given before using physical force when possible. This is referred to as the “use of force continuum” by the Department of Justice and many law enforcement agencies.
The continuum is not merely policy, however. It must be understood as a constitutional demand. This means that law enforcement must be trained to use force only when necessary and that the use of force must be reasonable and non-arbitrary.
Profits à Prendre: Are They Constitutionally Protected?
You may want to see also
Warnings should be given before using physical force
Riots are not constitutionally-protected protests. The right of Americans to peaceably assemble is a sacred right enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. However, this does not extend to violent riots, which are not protected by the Constitution.
The authority to quell riots and looting must be exercised responsibly, meaning reasonably, at every level. All law enforcement officers, members of the National Guard and members of the federal armed forces must be told and trained to use force only when necessary and only when it reasonably appears that lesser means of coercion are not feasible under the circumstances or have failed.
In the context of riots, the requirement that all government action be reasonable and non-arbitrary can also be based in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which protect against government infringements of personal liberty, including the infliction of physical injury.
Knives and the Constitution: What's the Verdict?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, riots are not constitutionally-protected protests. The right of Americans to peaceably assemble is a sacred right enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Peaceful protests are constitutionally-protected.
If a protest turns violent, those involved in the violence must be arrested, prosecuted and face the full power of American justice.
