President Obama and the Michael Brown case

[H2O Man]

33. "When passions drive,

let reason hold the reins." -- Ben Franklin

It's curious, indeed, when we see DUers using phrases such as "the boot and heel of the Federal Government," or describing those advocating an arrest in this case as a "lynch mob." But be that as it may.

Presidents do not determine Constitutional Law. They do, however, task the DoJ with insuring it is carried out; and the president does have resources -- including the National Guard -- that can be used.

Amendment 1 certainly provides for a free press. Likewise, it provides for citizens' right to gather in public. What that translates to at any given era is simply this: what the federal courts, primarily the USSC, says it means. In general, the federal courts are where state court decisions are appealed, on constitutional grounds, as far as discussions of "constitutional rights" go.

The relationship between USSC decisions and pressing social issues is fascinating. And frequently frustrating. I suspect that President Obama taught just that in his class rooms when he taught constitutional law.

Brown v Topeka BOE is perhaps the best remember decision from Ike's era. Yet, equally important would be the (in)famous "Steel Seizure" case of 1952. Hence, a good constitutional law course will always include the reading of "The Anatomy of a Constitutional Law Case" (Westin; Macmillan Press; 1958).

Or, let's fast-forward to the JFK era. Indeed, there's a famous case that has to do with citizens' rights to assembly in public to voice their opinions. It would be decided by the USSC in 1967, as "Walker v Birmingham." Interestingly, Rev. King lost that case.

Indeed, of the Amendment 1 rights which have been defined in that context of Constitutional Law, the right of assemble in public is most restricted. It is in no sense absolute; the USSC has ruled consistently that it does not provide license to gather in public freely. Now, one may agree or disagree with those decisions -- King obviously disagreed in the cited case, and hence had defied a state court decision. He acted upon his conscience. And lost the case.

Today, there are certainly instances where individual reporters are being subjected to the same mistreatment that average citizens in the community in question are facing. Yet there does not appear to be any evidence that journalists are being targeted for different, harsher treatment. In fact, much of the outrage is because of exactly that.

The two journalists in the McDonald's is a good example. Clearly, they were being mistreated. But that was entirely distinct from any "rights" as journalists. In fact, they did report on these incidents -- including calling in cable news shows while in custody.

Thus, we need to consider the vast differences between the rights of journalists as defined by Constitutional Law, versus the more common approaches that government (at all levels) tends to take when dealing with the press. Consider, for example, that in Vietnam, reporters were provided fairly direct access to events (while being lied to by the military and government). Yet Reagan would deny journalists that level of access to the conflicts he involved the US in (but still provided the misinformation and disinformation). While one can and should disagree with Reagan on this, he did not violate Constitutional Law.

Reporters' have the power of FOIL. But every citizen has that same right. Sadly, however, citizens lack the ability to report when the government fails to follow FOIL, that a wealthy media source enjoys. But the important thing is that reporters do not have superior "rights."

Since there is no court injunction, much less USSC decision, involving the current situation, the fact is that President Obama is limited in his options. Obviously, he has tasked the Attorney General with becoming actively involved in the current events. That is exactly what he should be doing. And while the public should be offended by events such as Don Lemon being pushed around by individual cops, it would be a stretch to claim it violated any Constitutional Law. And it would be a glaring error for President Obama to engage in a knee-jerk reaction.